Re: Not even "huge" world population, can slow the natural increase of many people.
Part 1 of 4?:
Pronatalist said:
They say that denying the right to procreate, is but one small step from denying the right to live.
Who is
'they'?
Obviously, "they" refers to those responsible for the quote, or perhaps to some pro-lifers or defenders of human life. Why focus on "they" rather than the validity of the quote? It is true that denying the right to procreate, isn't showing very much respect for human life. One practical reason why population "control" isn't very popular with humans, is that most people naturally prefer
life instead. People are naturally suspicious of "bait and switch" schemes, in which they are told one thing, and then told something contradictory. For most all of history, our peers, business and government told us that "growth is good." But now growth isn't good? But we are quite accustomed to growth, and there is still much room to ADAPT to further population growth, so why do population phobics refuse to consider such valid options that allow for continued growth in human numbers? That hardly sounds logical nor scientific to make clever "environmental" arguments to be so anti-technology/development luddites. People have many needs, including the very valid need to procreate and bring still more people into the world, a practical reason why I am so pro-development, as I believe the world could be comfortably and safelyy populated quite a lot more densely and efficiently, if it was merely developed properly, for that purpose.
Pronatalist said:
They are almost the same. Both about life. Both about basic human rights. To deny such things, is to enslave people, and refuse to respect their dignity as human beings created in God's image. People are social creatures, and quite capable of surviving and thriving even at extreme densities, if or as need be, and can obviously breed in cramped quarters as well. Some poster on another forum said that many births are home births and not counted in population tallies, and that mothers living in small homes sleeping only inches from their children, keep on getting pregnant. So shouldn't the emphasis be on improving housing conditions, and not a stupid scapegoat non-cure-all of "family planning?"
Survival isn't enough other than in species context. People don't as a rule live in cramped conditions through
choice but through necessity and thriving is a relative term. May be it's me but your views and word choice come over, to my 'ears' as sort of.....cultist. Or perhaps merely whimsical and naive.
It's such a shame, that population phobics pay so little attention to the long list of compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do. Some YouTube video shows people who live in makeshift shacks under a bridge, and they go inside one and they have a baby crib hanging basket thing. Somebody commented that these people shouldn't have children? Oh really? And WHY is that? People living under bridges don't have reproductive urges, nor love their children? People should be welcome to go on having babies, even if they happen to, at the moment live in cramped conditions. It makes far more sense for people to naturally live at high densities due to their sheer numbers, than to "make" them stop breeding. If they want to breed so much, yes they can both live and breed in closer proximity to their neighbors, as some population pessimists like to point out, the planet isn't getting any bigger. Higher density is one obvious tool by which more people may fit into the planet. I don't believe in applying population "control" to humans, because humans are intelligent creatures that can deal with things in better ways. Spaying and neutering is what we do to pets, that lack "human rights," as pets don't know any better and probably don't even know what makes babies.
But people don't live in cramped conditions due to sheer numbers. Simple observation and logic should tell us that. Cramped conditions come about by unfair economic systems that don't very well aim to take care of or provide reasonable opportunities to all people, but seem to always get skewed by evil rich people to favor some people over others, and most all society decisions are made by rich people who don't even live in the real world of the working poor, so often their decisions are unfair or idiotic.
But if ever it came to that, I do advocate people populating to extreme density, because the "growing pains" can be rather minor, compared to the great benefit of so many people enjoying being alive at the same time. There is a way that people may go on having their babies in a world with so many people already. Live and breed in closer proximity to other people, on the global scale at least. People like breeding so much? Let human bodies grow closer together so they can all fit somehow, as people naturally do not like external arbitrary "controls" on them that are quite unjustified and unnecessary.
Who can we trust to do all this population "control" freak
controlling? How about the billions of parents having the children, who have to raise them, and whose homes they first populate? People's own homes are always more confining than communities or the world, so if they can find a place anywhere in their homes, or hearts, for more children, so to can then, the world.
But when I read somebody claiming that mothers sleeping only inches from their children, keep getting pregnant in The Philippines, how could this be, if so? Apparently, many poor people don't seem to mind so much, growing even denser with people. Do we Americans even know why our homes are so big? It isn't due to the declining numbers of children we often aren't having. Our families shrink and our homes grow. It's ALL OUR STUFF! We tend to sometimes overbuy, overconsume, and hoard all sorts of junk we should sell or give away because often we don't even use it hardly ever. Poor people find that more human bodies, simply don't take up much space, and they do also benefit in helping each other keep warm, in primitive homes without an automatic modern heating system. And more people are more apt to buy into natural traditional views, like favoring the natural flow of human life, than into trendy new "modern" anti-life "family planning" dogmas. Children who grow up in large families, tend to be conditioned to living in large families, and apt to also have large families themselves. And I defend people's rights, to not have to try the shoddy "modern" contraceptive potions/poisons. Large families are the obvious natural and elegant outlet for powerful human reproductive urges. They say "you can't stop people from having sex?" Well what is sex? It's the natural flow of semen from penis into the vagina, for the main purpose of bringing more precious human beings to life. An obvious purpose of human life is to make more human life. So why don't they finish the idea, and say that "You can't stop people from having babies." Until very recently, they said that family size is "uncontrollable." Really? Then why can't it still be "uncontrollable" today? Or is there the invalid assumption that "you can fool all the people all the time," into using unnatural, shoddy contaceptives? BTW, population growth could provide a very handy excuse for pushing along needed development, especially in more pronatalist cultures. If birthrates persist seemingly "out of control," then why not design nations to better populate denser and more efficiently. I am very outraged at China for an irresponsible one-child policy that shirks their responsibility to accomodate their growing population. But I would not be at all alarmed if they were filling huge areas of land, with closely-spaced highrises teeming with people, so that all the more people could live at the same time, for the greater good of the many. As our reproductive urges and compelling reasons to have children, add up into a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.