overpopulation

D

deleted15807

Guest
Stress on the planet? Does the planet "care?" No, the planet does not think. It's a complex and resilient system designed to support human life, and multiply us to incredible levels. Deforestation? People don't eat trees, and we have trees within our cities


:bsflag:

Thanks for this paragraph. I won't waste my time. Designed to support human life? To the expense and detriment of every thing else. Right. Right. And global warming is a fraud and mass extinction is of no concern.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Re: What are we doing? Waiting for the next killer comet?,when we ought to be multiplying

If Yellowstone blows, there won't be many of you left. Then there won't be many of us left. After all, in real time terms, we have only been here in a twinkling of the eye.

Mass extinctions are not uncommon. Your hubris regarding our fragility in the face of nature is a bit silly really.

Well if you think that might happen, hadn't we be better growing beyond the earth, so as to not have "all our eggs in one basket," so to speak? Humans can't live on other worlds, until we "outgrow" this one it seems, because natural population expansion is necessary to drive forward whatever necessary space exploration technologies. We aren't anywhere near ready to colonize more worlds, as there is yet no need, and it would be far more expensive per capita for humans to live anywhere else.

If you are speaking of this Yellowstone "supervolcano" thing that I have heard of, obviously that wouldn't be caused by population, but something that happens, if it does, independent of all that. But then, people are here for a reason, so that's the likely reason that Yellowstone isn't going to blow up all that much anyway, if at all. Things don't just happen for no reason, but for a purpose.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Re: No matter what, don't you suppose that some people will never use birth control?

Not long ago, I hear that family size used to be thought "uncontrollable."

Pronatalist said:
Good point. They do have too much idle time on their hands, don't they?

But would you trust childless adults with no experience raising children, to watch your children? Me neither.

Excellent point...just as I don't trust people who insist birth control is Satan's work and tout irresponsibility.

So what exactly is, Satan's work? Abortion? Think murdering innocent babies, is wrong? How about lying and stealing? Is that Satan's work? Like Al Gore lying about "global warming," and how we must shun modern technology with its energy demands and CO2 emissions, and go back to the "Dark Ages," and oh yeah, reduce population while we are at it.

Do you know much of anything, about the particular bad history underingly "birth control?" Did you know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an immoral bed hopper, drug abuser, and into mysticism, communism, and hanged out with uncivilized radicals? Have you ever given much thought, as to the relationship between "birth control" and abortion? Abortion exists to "fix the mistakes" that inevitably slip by the shoddy "birth control," that is, if and when it is even used. "Birth control" goes against nature, trying to profane sex, and divorce copulation from reproduction. "Birth control" makes sex into a selfish and carnal act, and does not respect its "overflowing love" and procreation aspects. "Birth control" naturally leads to abortion, because both are of the same selfish mentality.

So you don't think that "birth control" is Satan's work? Well what's your take on a newspaper cartoon I saw, depicting the serpent in the Garden, handing Eve a condom? What was that all about? So do you also not trust the newspaper, because they dare show a cartoon, that just might be correct, or at the very least, be controversial? You only trust bland newspapers, that never offer any opinions or editorials?

Now of course, you don't have to trust me to watch your children. You would seem to have the right to be "picky" about who you let watch your children. But it matters, to have the right people into power, to make decisions for us. In Muslim countries, there can be quite a lot of strife, when false religion Muslims get into power, and use false religion to oppress the people. False religion has consequences. Let a nature-worshiper eco-freak tree-hugger green nazi globalist power-monger like Al Gore make too many important decisions for long, and our prosperity will be withering away, and how long until we have to take up arms to protect our families and liberty? Al Gore says there are too many people in the world, and yet where does he get off then, having 4 children?

Now who is touting irresponsibility? I never said that people should be having sex outside of wedlock. I do often say, that some people could be ready to marry younger though.

You see, I am quite compassionate. Al Gore, in his An Inconvenient Truth, makes little if any allowance for human needs. I don't ask that people use any means of "birth control," because I see a far better alternative. Let human populations accumulate naturally, and explore how to populate the planet more densely and efficiently, more comfortably and safely. There's ways to mitigate any supposedly "unpleasant" effects of rising human numbers, without actually "limiting" numbers. I know not everybody, well maybe with the exception of BigDuder and myself, is going to rush out and have just as many children as their bodies can push out, just because I happen to say it's a good idea to welcome fellow human lives. But I do understand that people do have their many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, so I suggest a more urbanized, populous planet, as the obvious alternative to the population "control" nonsense that people don't want. I do not ask that people select a "suitable" method of "birth control," because that goes against human life and nature. It's enough simply to expect people to raise and love their children, or transfer the responsibility by adoption. There is beauty and elegance, in the "no method" method of "family planning." Welcoming human populations to enlarge naturally, for the greater good of the many.

When I was younger, I thought I would prefer the method of "birth control," that was most natural. But when I became involved in the pro-life movement, I soon discovered, that "no method" is in fact, the most natural. Of course it helps to try to love thy neighbor, and then logically to love children, such that a potentially "large" family need not be a "scary" thought.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Re: Why can't natural family growth, progress more at the natural rate?

BigDuder said:
you guys are all whimps. i am going to have so many children.

Fertility is tied to education and wealth. The poor and uneducated have the most. So please go ahead and prove the theory.

Actually, many well-to-do and educated people, have large families also. I've known a few such families, that have 8 children. On purpose. Or letting it happen. As I read on some website, perhaps indirectly questioning the "demographic transition" deception, having money in one's pockets, does not magically sterilize the reproductive organs. Actually, there's a conspiracy theory that claims that the income tax was invented, lest Americans find themselves becoming too wealthy, which may then encourage them to go on having large families and supposedly chronically over-breeding.

I don't know what BigDuder's education level is, but I am well-educated and well-read. (People at work, even sometimes tell me, that I am too smart to be working where I am working.) I know far more about demographics than most people.

"Correlation does not equal causation." Probably about the best explanation of why poor people have large families, is as they say, "Children are their only wealth," Children are their "old age security." Sex their only recreation. And the cost of contraceptives out of the question. Poor peasants benefit economically from additional "farmhands," or children to chop the wood to keep them warm. For people who don't have money, children don't cost much. Children sometimes bring income into the family. Or at least some relief from an oppressive and dull world. When people gain wealth, they find other things to do, than to make babies in the dark where there isn't any electricity, and find more excuses to maybe use the shoddy contraceptives that the "family planning" workers keep pushing. But the way contraceptives are pushed, is quite dishonest. A slick sales pitch. Way too much emphasis on what "burdens" children are, not enough on the joy, way too much downplaying of side-effects, and they jump to "Which method do you want to use," rather than taking a more logical step in examining, "Is there really much reason to 'limit' natural family growth?" So many married couples, may not be near as fertile as they think they are anyway.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Re: If we don't control our numbers, human populations will accumulate faster/easier.

Pronatalist said:
Stress on the planet? Does the planet "care?" No, the planet does not think. It's a complex and resilient system designed to support human life, and multiply us to incredible levels. Deforestation? People don't eat trees, and we have trees within our cities

:bsflag:

Thanks for this paragraph. I won't waste my time. Designed to support human life? To the expense and detriment of every thing else. Right. Right. And global warming is a fraud and mass extinction is of no concern.

Humans have to come first. Humans are more valuable than anything else on the planet. Even insurance statistics would seem to suggest that somewhat. If supposedly we humans are becoming "too many," then surely we must expand our habitat to more comfortably and safely welcome and fit everybody into the world. I do not oppose humans perhaps growing into some "crowded monoculture," as some population phobic called humans. Why should I curtail my child making, to save some room for a few birds or squirrels? Do spotted owls or snail darters, vote or pay taxes? Good luck getting a tree to come to the polls, said actor John Candy in Evan Almighty. Sure, animals have a little value, for decorating the world, or filling my dinner plate. But I do not at all, feed the wildlife running about my yard. When I need the space, if ever, I shall not "feel guilty," nor ask Al Gore's permission, to enlarge my home and add more rooms, or move to a bigger home, or cut down a few trees, to better accomodate my natural family growth. Actually, I do in fact have a "duty" to provide for my family, which means I am obligated to expand human habitat, if necessary to accomodate my few or many children.

Global warming is a huge fraud. Check out "The Great Global Warming Swindol" on google videos. How "convenient" that they attack something apparently, currently, so crucial to modern prosperity, carbon dioxide, what we must breathe out, and what it still takes to power so many of our machines and furnaces in our homes, that keep us from shivering and getting sickly at night. So typical of the "poverty religion" of "environmentalism," almost always explained in terms of the false religion of evolution.

And "environmentalists" are so indoctrinated, that they won't even explore amusing alternative ideas, like if there really is any "global warming," could it be that nature is "warming" up to so much humanity, and trying to change the world more into a "Garden of Eden"-like paradise, so that we humans may feel free to multiply all the more, and why is Al Gore so opposed to this? To let the planet slip into another ice age would be better, something like what happened after the people disappeared, due to robotic jigalos and lack of breeding, towards the end of the movie, Artificial Intelligence? I figure that in the movie, since the people disappeared, nature no longer had any reason to maintain a human-friendly climate. Winter could also be seen as symbolic of trouble and oppression, as in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Re: If we don't control our numbers, human populations will accumulate faster/easier.



Humans have to come first. Humans are more valuable than anything else on the planet. Even insurance statistics would seem to suggest that somewhat. If supposedly we humans are becoming "too many," then surely we must expand our habitat to more comfortably and safely welcome and fit everybody into the world. I do not oppose humans perhaps growing into some "crowded monoculture," as some population phobic called humans. Why should I curtail my child making, to save some room for a few birds or squirrels? Do spotted owls or snail darters, vote or pay taxes? Good luck getting a tree to come to the polls, said actor John Candy in Evan Almighty. Sure, animals have a little value, for decorating the world, or filling my dinner plate. But I do not at all, feed the wildlife running about my yard. When I need the space, if ever, I shall not "feel guilty," nor ask Al Gore's permission, to enlarge my home and add more rooms, or move to a bigger home, or cut down a few trees, to better accomodate my natural family growth. Actually, I do in fact have a "duty" to provide for my family, which means I am obligated to expand human habitat, if necessary to accomodate my few or many children.

Global warming is a huge fraud. Check out "The Great Global Warming Swindol" on google videos. How "convenient" that they attack something apparently, currently, so crucial to modern prosperity, carbon dioxide, what we must breathe out, and what it still takes to power so many of our machines and furnaces in our homes, that keep us from shivering and getting sickly at night. So typical of the "poverty religion" of "environmentalism," almost always explained in terms of the false religion of evolution.

And "environmentalists" are so indoctrinated, that they won't even explore amusing alternative ideas, like if there really is any "global warming," could it be that nature is "warming" up to so much humanity, and trying to change the world more into a "Garden of Eden"-like paradise, so that we humans may feel free to multiply all the more, and why is Al Gore so opposed to this? To let the planet slip into another ice age would be better, something like what happened after the people disappeared, due to robotic jigalos and lack of breeding, towards the end of the movie, Artificial Intelligence? I figure that in the movie, since the people disappeared, nature no longer had any reason to maintain a human-friendly climate. Winter could also be seen as symbolic of trouble and oppression, as in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.

:bsflag:
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Re: Why can't natural family growth, progress more at the natural rate?



Actually, many well-to-do and educated people, have large families also. I've known a few such families, that have 8 children. On purpose. Or letting it happen. As I read on some website, perhaps indirectly questioning the "demographic transition" deception, having money in one's pockets, does not magically sterilize the reproductive organs. Actually, there's a conspiracy theory that claims that the income tax was invented, lest Americans find themselves becoming too wealthy, which may then encourage them to go on having large families and supposedly chronically over-breeding.

I don't know what BigDuder's education level is, but I am well-educated and well-read. (People at work, even sometimes tell me, that I am too smart to be working where I am working.) I know far more about demographics than most people.

"Correlation does not equal causation." Probably about the best explanation of why poor people have large families, is as they say, "Children are their only wealth," Children are their "old age security." Sex their only recreation. And the cost of contraceptives out of the question. Poor peasants benefit economically from additional "farmhands," or children to chop the wood to keep them warm. For people who don't have money, children don't cost much. Children sometimes bring income into the family. Or at least some relief from an oppressive and dull world. When people gain wealth, they find other things to do, than to make babies in the dark where there isn't any electricity, and find more excuses to maybe use the shoddy contraceptives that the "family planning" workers keep pushing. But the way contraceptives are pushed, is quite dishonest. A slick sales pitch. Way too much emphasis on what "burdens" children are, not enough on the joy, way too much downplaying of side-effects, and they jump to "Which method do you want to use," rather than taking a more logical step in examining, "Is there really much reason to 'limit' natural family growth?" So many married couples, may not be near as fertile as they think they are anyway.


:bsflag:


Every single word.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Re: If we don't control our numbers, human populations will accumulate faster/easier.



Humans have to come first. Humans are more valuable than anything else on the planet. Even insurance statistics would seem to suggest that somewhat.

Well given Mother Nature can't exactly file a claim this can't be news. Of course we value our own lives more. Why? Because as George Carlin says 'Because we fuckin made it up'.

Conservatives want babies so they can end up dead soldiers - G.C.
YouTube - Pro Life is Anti-Woman - George Carlin