So you are of the opinion humanity is doomed....a dying body?
Breed LESS
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Well, of course eventually it is doomed, but not necesserily because of overpopulation. A nuclear war or an airborne, fast acting killer virus could finish us off faster.
But in the long run, having too many people sure doesn't help and just increases the risks of the other two...
But in the long run, having too many people sure doesn't help and just increases the risks of the other two...
The Japanese Prime Minister just publicly declared that all Japanese women are "baby machines" in order to increase their birth rate to head off a huge economic problem with so many elderly Japanese retiring and no one to take care of them. Same situation in the U.S. with social security funds running out. Economics vs. world population. What a global mess.
Syzygys:
ACtually, no illness can kill off a population of 6 billion at 100 percent efficiency. The most virulent illness known was the black plague, and that barely hit 1/3rd.
Similarly, we do not have to worry about large-scale nuclear conflict, owing to MAD. What we have to worry about is terrorist nukes and small-scale tactical nuclear exchanges between minorly-armed nations (see: China, Israel, Pakistan, and India).
ACtually, no illness can kill off a population of 6 billion at 100 percent efficiency. The most virulent illness known was the black plague, and that barely hit 1/3rd.
Similarly, we do not have to worry about large-scale nuclear conflict, owing to MAD. What we have to worry about is terrorist nukes and small-scale tactical nuclear exchanges between minorly-armed nations (see: China, Israel, Pakistan, and India).
It is so easy to prove you wrong, it is not even a challenge...
1. Who needs 100%? If the efficiency is higher than the birthrate, time will take care of the problem.
2. Ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate.
I am glad, you are not worried. You probably never heard of nuclear military accidents when WW3 ALMOST occured, just by human or machine mistakes. Look it up...
1. Who needs 100%? If the efficiency is higher than the birthrate, time will take care of the problem.
2. Ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate.
I am glad, you are not worried. You probably never heard of nuclear military accidents when WW3 ALMOST occured, just by human or machine mistakes. Look it up...
I pretty much agree we stand a high risk of slaying ourselves yes. Frankly I think we are at an "intersteller" point in the evolutionary process. A simple question really:
Can this people obtain a morality to avoid killing themselves?
If yes, then expand beyond home planet.
If no, then repeat with new dominant species.
In my opinion the successful morality does not include legislating your balls.
Can this people obtain a morality to avoid killing themselves?
If yes, then expand beyond home planet.
If no, then repeat with new dominant species.
In my opinion the successful morality does not include legislating your balls.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Human population growth, is quite natural. It's up to God how populous we may grow.
Most everybody has their compelling reasons for having as many children as they do, and more and more people would be glad to live, and people of course have powerful reproductive urges best satisfied after marriage of course--by reproduction. That all adds up to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race.
Of course people worldwide should go on breeding and breeding. What part of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? There are serious side effects to "birth control" seriously underreported. Catholic-condoned rhythm, the world objects to, saying it requires too much "self-control." Well isn't that one of the things that marriage is supposed to be about, building the family nest and commitment, the proper preparation for providing for and loving children? Welcome more fellow human beings to come alive. Whatever happened to welcoming babies to happen when they happen? So why not talk of the virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning," since any other method after marriage, goes against nature and is quite unnecessary. Some lady who wrote an article in Glamour magazine, about the mad rush so many women have to finally have some children before it is too late, and then end up spending $thousands on infertility assistance, said it was like her diaphram was laughing at her saying, "You probably didn't need me anyway."
I have long encouraged large families worldwide, because even population arcologies, if it ever came to that, are far better than nasty, awkward, anti-family "birth control." In the ethics subforum or folder, somebody posted some beatiful picture of some artist's rendering of future population arcologies, which I don't think is where we are headed anyway, considering also the growing, perhaps runaway "birth dearth" of Europe, no doubt afflicted upon them by rampant contraceptive peddling, and the impending Biblical endtimes anyway.
You mention China? What if China was to ask us, what if you had a billion people within your borders? Still okay for people to enjoy having "all the children God gives?" Well the correct answer then, would be "Of course we would still welcome people to have large families." What do you think all this technology is for anyway? I notice that technology right now, is headed far more towards allowing people to populate more densely and efficiently throughout the world, than towards colonizing other worlds yet. There is a way to accomodate the world's burgeoning billions well into the forseeable future, and that is to allow there to become more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. The sacredness of each and every human life is sacrosant. It shouldn't even be subject to debate. A populous world is not the place to be disparaging human life. It would be more prudent to promote the social graces, and seek to actually like people, especially since there are now so many of us.
It's not corporation legal fiction "persons" that should be welcome to grow as large as possible, but rather real people.
http://www.thecorporation.com
Most everybody has their compelling reasons for having as many children as they do, and more and more people would be glad to live, and people of course have powerful reproductive urges best satisfied after marriage of course--by reproduction. That all adds up to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race.
Of course people worldwide should go on breeding and breeding. What part of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? There are serious side effects to "birth control" seriously underreported. Catholic-condoned rhythm, the world objects to, saying it requires too much "self-control." Well isn't that one of the things that marriage is supposed to be about, building the family nest and commitment, the proper preparation for providing for and loving children? Welcome more fellow human beings to come alive. Whatever happened to welcoming babies to happen when they happen? So why not talk of the virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning," since any other method after marriage, goes against nature and is quite unnecessary. Some lady who wrote an article in Glamour magazine, about the mad rush so many women have to finally have some children before it is too late, and then end up spending $thousands on infertility assistance, said it was like her diaphram was laughing at her saying, "You probably didn't need me anyway."
I have long encouraged large families worldwide, because even population arcologies, if it ever came to that, are far better than nasty, awkward, anti-family "birth control." In the ethics subforum or folder, somebody posted some beatiful picture of some artist's rendering of future population arcologies, which I don't think is where we are headed anyway, considering also the growing, perhaps runaway "birth dearth" of Europe, no doubt afflicted upon them by rampant contraceptive peddling, and the impending Biblical endtimes anyway.
You mention China? What if China was to ask us, what if you had a billion people within your borders? Still okay for people to enjoy having "all the children God gives?" Well the correct answer then, would be "Of course we would still welcome people to have large families." What do you think all this technology is for anyway? I notice that technology right now, is headed far more towards allowing people to populate more densely and efficiently throughout the world, than towards colonizing other worlds yet. There is a way to accomodate the world's burgeoning billions well into the forseeable future, and that is to allow there to become more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. The sacredness of each and every human life is sacrosant. It shouldn't even be subject to debate. A populous world is not the place to be disparaging human life. It would be more prudent to promote the social graces, and seek to actually like people, especially since there are now so many of us.
It's not corporation legal fiction "persons" that should be welcome to grow as large as possible, but rather real people.
http://www.thecorporation.com
You sir are a religious nutcase and nonsensical idiot, who should not be responded to, but speaking of beautiful pictures:
The truly sad thing is, Pronatalist is so singularly focused on his quest to see Homo Sapiens displace every other living thing on the planet that he probably thinks those pictures are wonderful.
With no compelling evidence of any sort of god, I have no hesitation to throw out commandments from bronze age creation myths. There is no evidence that anyone or anything in our universe is anything but indifferent to the fate of our species. Our inflated sense of our own importance will likely be the cause of our own demise. But extinction is the eventual fate of all species, just as your own personal death is unavoidable. So there is no point in getting upset about it.
Since we supposedly have free will, does it make any sense to continue breeding uncontrollably, until we are drowning in our own filth?
Your knowledge of disease is pathetic.
Resistance develops, as well as individuals containing natural resistance. Every organism on the planet has immune responses to pathogens, developed by billions of years of evolution. Humans are no exception.
Even a disease with a 99.9% mortality rate leaves 0.1% of the population, which will result in greater resource distrubtion between the survivors, less environmental stress due to crowding, and a greatly diminished exposure to disease vectors.
For instance, Myxomatosis. Or the growth cycles of grouse.
There is natural selection on diseases to become less virulent, and even stronger selection on populations to develop resistance.
While a plague may have the potential to obliterate life as we know it, it surely won't obliterate the human species- there are too many of us, too spread out.
Your knowledge of math is pathetic. Who cares about resistance once 90+% was already whiped out?
I never said the disease whipes out all humankind, did I?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bawl:
P.S.: You breed not as you wish but as some drunk women let you...
Last edited:
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bawl:
P.S.: You breed not as you wish but as some drunk women let's you...
i DO not wish for my child to be born from drunk woman.
But I will find a suitable healthy woman nevertheless, when the time is right.
I'm so glad China gets those "special kyoto" conditions...
So that's the country we are supposed to emulate?
How about this, how about we just gun down their boats filled with people looking for refugee status and continue with the north american increase, which is very modest.
So that's the country we are supposed to emulate?
How about this, how about we just gun down their boats filled with people looking for refugee status and continue with the north american increase, which is very modest.
suits you, assassin.
The age of industrialization seems to be the cause...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
And if you need something off the wall to pass your time...
http://www.ferroboats.com/
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
And if you need something off the wall to pass your time...
http://www.ferroboats.com/