Predicting the Next 100 Years

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
I dont want to imagine the world with a population of over 12 billion people . Really is scary to think about it.

So why should it seem "scary?" By then, it would be just "the normal thing." Already, the scare tactic propaganda of population phobics, already is turning passe and losing its "shock value," as people seem to be noticing, that we aren't all dead yet, as population alarmists had carelessly predicted.

Some TV game show contestant on TV, commented that the population only goes up.

There's some Utilitarian Principle thing I have heard of, that says that often the best thing to do is that which benefits the most people. Even some website commented on how that implies population growth, so that more people may benefit from whatever. If humans could define an "optimum" populaton size for the human race, it wouldn't be pidly small, but more on the order of being or becoming "nearly as large as possible." So I have long been an advocate for large families and the populous masses pushing out their babies naturally, without the burden of highly experimental, shoddy, nasty, unnatural, anti-life contraceptive potions/poisons directly polluting the body. It also better respects nature and nature's creator God, to welcome our babies to push out naturally, as what could be more natural than the natural increase of humans?

It seems most demographers these days, aren't predicting 12 billion, due to rampant contraceptive pushing around the world. But if humans would grow so numerous, I welcome the prospect, as it likely would bring many welcome technological improvements along with it, not to mention so many precious darling babies to families eager to welcome them, as I think quite a lot of natural technology acceleration really is largely population-driven.
 

simcha

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Posts
2,173
Media
0
Likes
26
Points
268
Location
San Leandro, CA, USA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the world population will level out because farming technology has reached a plateau with the amount of arable land declining. You need food to feed people. It is a finite planet with finite resources, afterall...
 

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

As more women reach childbearing age throughout many regions of the world, there then is more birth canal passages from which babies may emerge. The more populated we get, the better we get at accomodating population, and also the more people there are wanting/having babies. How may people go on having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive now? Simple. By exploring how to populate denser and more efficiently, at least on the global scale. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.

When I add up the long list of compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, and the powerful human reproductive urges we pretty much all feel, what I come up with, is a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

So I agree with some of the sci-fi predicting (or hoping for?) a more populous future, and also the common idea, that it could be a rather pleasant future, especially I would add, in a more pronatalist world more eager to ADAPT to naturally rising, than to excessively "control" the populous masses.

In the CD dramaticized version of the "Left Behind" series of books, a fictional account of how Biblical endtimes events might play out, the Anti-Christ scolded the developing nations for letting their populations "balloon." Yeah, sounds like an anti-christ sort of thing to do. Conversely then, what's the humane and kind thing to do? Just that. Let the populations naturally "balloon" in size, as how else can the planet be made to hold more people, in accordance with the apparent wishes of the breeders, which are pretty much most all humans? Let cities and towns and villages grow larger and closer together, as obviously, people don't want to be told how many children they may have.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
It's really hard to predict what the world will be like in 20 years, let alone 100 years. In 1985, I was told by respected historians that the Berlin Wall would not come down "in our lifetimes". And was told by the owner of a computer business that he couldn't think of a good reason for the average person to own a PC. At that time, PCs were used for things like word-processing, storing recipes, playing games, and a little bit of spreadsheet stuff. Nobody had even an inkling, so far as I recall, that the internet would be by far the major reason to own a PC.

So with that in mind, I predict that a recent invention which seems inconsequential will have a life-changing effect by 2107. I predict that a recent scientific breakthrough that seems to open a lot of doors will prove to be a dead end.

I predict that the nations/peoples that are our enemies now will be our friends, and that our current allies will be our enemies.

I predict that there will never be any fucking flying cars. Get used to it.
 

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
?? Are talking of world population in the future with over 6 billion people or with 2-3 billion people ? Do you think that the present world population is small?

The present world population size of supposedly 6.6 billion people, is small. Compared to what could fit or be made to fit upon the planet. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more.

But 2 billion people is really pidly small, and quite stupid and unrealistic, considering that most people don't seem to be finished having children.

It's not so much that we supposedly "need" more people, at least to staff the unquestioning socialist machine society, but that people aren't just mere cogs in a "machine," but society is organized to benefit the people. But people need to have their precious darling children, and they can continue to do so, simply by living and breeding in a little closer proximity to their neighbors, at least on the global scale. The planet can much more easily endure our rising population "pressure," than people can be expected to struggle against nature and often against their own desires and yearnings for children as well.

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we should not seek to hinder the natural flow of human life throughout the world. If nature could "have its way," nature would multiply us all the more, because humans are part of nature, not "intrusions" upon nature. But because God created people and gave people dominion over nature, we also transcend nature, and alter nature to favor humans all the more. In fact, most all jobs alter nature in some way, to support ever more people. Did you know that? How? Because most all jobs serve people in some way.
 

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
I think the world population will level out because farming technology has reached a plateau with the amount of arable land declining. You need food to feed people. It is a finite planet with finite resources, afterall...

Actually obesity is becoming more and more a worldwide pandemic, and I read of an "overpopulation" theory on some forum, claiming that we have too much food, which supposedly fuels "wild" population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Gee, can't they make up their minds which to worry our small unquestioning minds about, too little or now too much food?

Look at how much electronics and computers has shrunk. My small graphing calculator has more processing power now, than my first "computer" did. Something remotely similar is also happening with agricultural technology. More food is increasingly grown on less land. While former farmland is being converted into housing for sprawling cities.

Most everything that could seemingly keep human populations "in check," seems to be fast fading away. Population will level out? Only if people have less sex, or the contraceptive pushers continue to dupe people into destroying their reproductive systems using their magical anti-baby potions/poisons, that seek to hinder the body's natural functions.

Sci-fi seems to suggest that humans will soon just fly off in their spaceships, and easily find or terraform new worlds for expanding human populations to grow into. If so, there's little sign of it happening anytime soon. Rather, the technology is going in an alternate direction, suggesting for now, that we populate denser and denser throughout the world instead. Cleaner technologies and modern plumbing/sanitation/toilets, offer the prospect that cities can be bigger and fuller of people and closer together, more comfortably and safely, than ever before. Somewhere I read that we need a "paradigm shift." Oh really? Then I suggest it would be, that as the world increasingly urbanizes, the big city, and not just the spacious countryside, should be seen as a proper place for people to go on having their "traditionally very large" families. Since we like breeding so much, and the whining enviro-wackos love to remind us of the supposed finiteness of the planet, well it's still possible to enjoy having big families or for babies to happen when they happen, if we can simply adjust/adapt to live and breed in closer proximity to our multiplying neighbors. Rather than experiment with a bewildering array of nasty, side-effect-ridden contraceptives, I would gladly "scoot over" a bit, for my proliferating neighbors, if they would simply do the same, for my growing family, and for my grandchildren to come.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Most everything that could seemingly keep human populations "in check," seems to be fast fading away. Population will level out? Only if people have less sex, or the contraceptive pushers continue to dupe people into destroying their reproductive systems using their magical anti-baby potions/poisons, that seek to hinder the body's natural functions.

That's a lovely view you have of individualism and free choice. :mad:

Exactly what are the benefits to the world as a whole that stem from a population double the current one? What is the benefit of a large family to parents who don't want a large family?
 

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: As human populations spread into the sky and orbit, fucking and births will occur there also.

It's really hard to predict what the world will be like in 20 years, let alone 100 years. In 1985, I was told by respected historians that the Berlin Wall would not come down "in our lifetimes". And was told by the owner of a computer business that he couldn't think of a good reason for the average person to own a PC. At that time, PCs were used for things like word-processing, storing recipes, playing games, and a little bit of spreadsheet stuff. Nobody had even an inkling, so far as I recall, that the internet would be by far the major reason to own a PC.

So with that in mind, I predict that a recent invention which seems inconsequential will have a life-changing effect by 2107. I predict that a recent scientific breakthrough that seems to open a lot of doors will prove to be a dead end.

I predict that the nations/peoples that are our enemies now will be our friends, and that our current allies will be our enemies.

I predict that there will never be any fucking flying cars. Get used to it.

What's with the bad language? "Fucking" is a verb, not an adverb.

Rather, I predict that in time, there will be fucking going on in flying cars. Flying cars, I would define, as lacking wings or whirling rotors, to make them more parkable without requiring airports, and to distinguish them from airplanes/helecopters. Well unless the Biblical endtimes come before The Jetson (futuristic cartoon) -like future, or unless flying cars are so fast, that they get there almost before you leave. But then of course, there's the "quickie."
 

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: People can still have large families, within a "huge" world population.

That's a lovely view you have of individualism and free choice. :mad:

Exactly what are the benefits to the world as a whole that stem from a population double the current one? What is the benefit of a large family to parents who don't want a large family?

It's not just "individual" rights why I defend people having large families, but also the greater good of the many, which is enhanced by population growth. People have no obligation to society to "limit" their childbearing, because there exists the far better alternative of working to accomodate population growth, for the greater good of the many. Not even "huge" world population, is any excuse to deny the basic right of procreation, and welcoming individual families to push out just as many babies out of every human vagina, as their bodies, or nature, or God produces/gives them. Most everybody used to know that, before all the rampant contraceptive propaganda infected their minds towards declining social mores and promiscuity.

They say that denying the right to procreate, is but one small step from denying the right to live. 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?" I have read that people in developing countries often won't use condoms, because they want children and want to get pregnant. They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth, and sex their only recreation. And the cost of contraceptives is out of the question. "Birth control" is still often associated with "dirty sex" (i.e. prostitution), for good reason, as look at all the abortion and promiscuity and divorce and side-effects and infertility issues it has led to in our society.

What are the benefits to the world from double the present population? That's easy. People tend to be happier and not so apt to take up arms and go to war, when welcomed to go on having their babies, and with double the population, double the number of people can then enjoy life.

Since other planets don't seem to be admitting humans just yet, it does make practical sense to populate this one more heavily then, since we all must live here. It's far easier in technological and logistical and practical terms, to cram "several planets' worth of people" on this planet, than to transport them to other worlds and make those world habitable.

What are the benefits of a large family to a family thinking they weren't quite so sure they wanted so many? Do you really think that so many "large" families were originally "planned" that way, by the parents? No, I think what often happens, is that they just had their 4th child, and still haven't got around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control" and somehow seem to overlook, that their family is already starting to get "large." It sort of sneaks up or "grows" on them, and by the time they realize that people look at them strange, for having a "large" number of children, it is already "too late," and they have already bonded to them, and can't imagine not having had so many children, if they could somehow do it over again. People often learn how to raise large families, either by growing up in one themselves, or by simply doing it. The "largeness" of the family comes on gradually, usually one baby at a time, such that they are already used to it, by the time it has apparently happened.

It also means that more people can enjoy sex without the bother of complicated, side-effect-ridden "birth control," even if not really "intending" on more children. Sperm is harmless. All it can do, is maybe make a baby, and that is supposed to be a "good" thing to bring precious new human lives into the world. Actually, I have read that natural insemination does also help bond couples more closely together, so it could very well be beneficial, not merely "harmless" as I said.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
They say that denying the right to procreate, is but one small step from denying the right to live.

Who is 'they'?

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.

I have read that people in developing countries often won't use condoms, because they want children and want to get pregnant.

That may be one reason, religious beliefs may be another, but so also may ignorance, poverty and lack of access be other equally valid reasons.

They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth, and sex their only recreation. And the cost of contraceptives is out of the question. "Birth control" is still often associated with "dirty sex" (i.e. prostitution), for good reason, as look at all the abortion and promiscuity and divorce and side-effects and infertility issues it has led to in our society.

Again with the 'they'. Who are they, your fellow cult members?

Birth control being associated with prostitution may be a valid observation in some limited circumstances but your underlying scorn flies in the face of what your saying that the more people the better, or does that belief hold true only so long as they're the product of sex other than the 'dirty kind'?

What are the benefits to the world from double the present population? That's easy. People tend to be happier and not so apt to take up arms and go to war, when welcomed to go on having their babies, and with double the population, double the number of people can then enjoy life.

If you truly believe that, you need to up your medication.

Since other planets don't seem to be admitting humans just yet, it does make practical sense to populate this one more heavily then, since we all must live here. It's far easier in technological and logistical and practical terms, to cram "several planets' worth of people" on this planet, than to transport them to other worlds and make those world habitable.

I think you're trying to have a joke, but I'll bite, once or twice.

Sperm is harmless. All it can do, is maybe make a baby, and that is supposed to be a "good" thing to bring precious new human lives into the world. Actually, I have read that natural insemination does also help bond couples more closely together, so it could very well be beneficial, not merely "harmless" as I said.

Or, pass on a wide and growing selection of disease. Contraception isn't merely a tool for birth control. The problem with faith and pseudo faith based arguments (such as yours appear to be) is that the tend to fly in the face of practical experience, and of course actual reality.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
rampant contraceptive propaganda infected their minds towards declining social mores and promiscuity.

This tripe isn't worth responding to, but I'm quoting it anyway to ensure that any casual readers are aware of your views on choice and sexuality.

What are the benefits to the world from double the present population? That's easy. People tend to be happier and not so apt to take up arms and go to war, when welcomed to go on having their babies, and with double the population, double the number of people can then enjoy life.

Wrong. This has never happened in the history of the world. Double the population, and we will see more war, as people begin to fight more aggressively for the best (i.e. most agriculturally suitable) parts of the world to live in.

It's far easier in technological and logistical and practical terms, to cram "several planets' worth of people" on this planet, than to transport them to other worlds and make those world habitable.

It's far easier to reduce the birth rate - which, if you hadn't noticed, goes hand in hand with a higher standard of living - than to do either of the options you have hypothesized.

Deny reality all you want, but there are a finite amount of resources on this planet. Look at current commodity and energy prices. Look at the number of people who currently aren't getting enough food and clean water. And you're advocating doubling the population (which even at the current pace, will happen in another 70 years or so)?? Technological efficiencies in mineral extraction and agri-/aquaculture can't come fast enough.
 

B_tallbig

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Posts
984
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
n/a
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
So why should it seem "scary?" By then, it would be just "the normal thing." Already, the scare tactic propaganda of population phobics, already is turning passe and losing its "shock value," as people seem to be noticing, that we aren't all dead yet, as population alarmists had carelessly predicted.

Some TV game show contestant on TV, commented that the population only goes up.

There's some Utilitarian Principle thing I have heard of, that says that often the best thing to do is that which benefits the most people. Even some website commented on how that implies population growth, so that more people may benefit from whatever. If humans could define an "optimum" populaton size for the human race, it wouldn't be pidly small, but more on the order of being or becoming "nearly as large as possible." So I have long been an advocate for large families and the populous masses pushing out their babies naturally, without the burden of highly experimental, shoddy, nasty, unnatural, anti-life contraceptive potions/poisons directly polluting the body. It also better respects nature and nature's creator God, to welcome our babies to push out naturally, as what could be more natural than the natural increase of humans?

It seems most demographers these days, aren't predicting 12 billion, due to rampant contraceptive pushing around the world. But if humans would grow so numerous, I welcome the prospect, as it likely would bring many welcome technological improvements along with it, not to mention so many precious darling babies to families eager to welcome them, as I think quite a lot of natural technology acceleration really is largely population-driven.
What most people fail to realize is that the planet resources arent infinite .
The present world population is already starting to present problems in the planet . A population of 12 billion represents twice the problem.
Also the increase of population also means the increase of social inequality.
 

B_tallbig

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Posts
984
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
103
Location
n/a
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The present world population size of supposedly 6.6 billion people, is small. Compared to what could fit or be made to fit upon the planet. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more.

But 2 billion people is really pidly small, and quite stupid and unrealistic, considering that most people don't seem to be finished having children.

It's not so much that we supposedly "need" more people, at least to staff the unquestioning socialist machine society, but that people aren't just mere cogs in a "machine," but society is organized to benefit the people. But people need to have their precious darling children, and they can continue to do so, simply by living and breeding in a little closer proximity to their neighbors, at least on the global scale. The planet can much more easily endure our rising population "pressure," than people can be expected to struggle against nature and often against their own desires and yearnings for children as well.

Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we should not seek to hinder the natural flow of human life throughout the world. If nature could "have its way," nature would multiply us all the more, because humans are part of nature, not "intrusions" upon nature. But because God created people and gave people dominion over nature, we also transcend nature, and alter nature to favor humans all the more. In fact, most all jobs alter nature in some way, to support ever more people. Did you know that? How? Because most all jobs serve people in some way.
Wow you think that 6.6 billion people in the world is small population.
Also it seems that you think that the space of land in this planet is infinite too .
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
It also means that more people can enjoy sex without the bother of complicated, side-effect-ridden "birth control," even if not really "intending" on more children. Sperm is harmless. All it can do, is maybe make a baby, and that is supposed to be a "good" thing to bring precious new human lives into the world. Actually, I have read that natural insemination does also help bond couples more closely together, so it could very well be beneficial, not merely "harmless" as I said.

So what do you propose to do about the men who are pathological impregnators and end up being a baby daddy to dozens of children? Those precious new lives end up suffering in poverty because dad is bouncing around from woman to woman and not using condoms or other forms of birth control. Please explain how beneficial that is for society.
 

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: 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.
 

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: Not even "huge" world population, can slow the natural increase of many people.

Part 2 of 4?:

But what are we realistically talking about, within the forseeable future? A little urban sprawl here and there, as human numbers in many regions continue to creep upwards. Demographers claim that they don't expect the world population to grow all that much more, but is the term "demographic transition" really accurate in what it implies? Not really. More modern societies find other things to do than make more babies all the time, but it's really due to the rampant contraceptive peddling, under a very bad eugenics/abortion history that disrespects what sex and life is all about.

As I read somewhere, there is nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. Obviously, people living in developed countries, who have money, often also have "very large" families. But far better for populations to grow on purpose and state the reasons why, than by "accident," whatever "accident" might supposedly mean. Population growth is really by design, but "by accident" suggests doing little or nothing to accomodate, and acting "surprised" when it inevitably grows anyway.

How is it merely whimsical or cultist, to suggest that humans naturally tend to natural increase? Isn't the "cult" the ones trying to suggest that reproductive organs aren't to be used for ... reproduction? If sex is so great as the world makes it out to be, then shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas in the world, populating closer together, so that all the more people may enjoy sex, life, or something? In nature, doesn't all life seek to spread into every available niche? Should it necessary be so different with humans, who God specified where our numbers should be headed, in giving people dominion over nature and other creatures? What is "dominion" anyway? Do we dominate, merely because we think we are so smart, or because "we can?" No, I think dominion becomes necessary, due to our sheer numbers. There's now so many people in the world, that resources must be developed and used, to better accomodate the populous masses. We have to dam rivers, drill wells, pump potable water to people's homes or at least withing walking distance. People either need to be able to grow food, or buy food, so there must be decent jobs. That's why I call for development and cheap energy. Maybe not everybody can live in the spacious countryside anymore, or would there be any "countryside" left? But what do growing cities full of people need to function? Cheap and abundant energy to power them. If people don't want to grow their own food anymore, then they must have other, better things to do.

dong20 said:
Pronatalist said:
I have read that people in developing countries often won't use condoms, because they want children and want to get pregnant.

That may be one reason, religious beliefs may be another, but so also may ignorance, poverty and lack of access be other equally valid reasons.

I don't expect them to use condoms, as who really wants to have sex with a balloon?, and I have no expectation to use any means of "birth control" myself, so I don't expect them to either.

"Pro-life is more consistantly pro-life when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

Quite often, a very logical excuse people especially in developed countries have for choosing the obvious? "no method" method of "family planning, is simply that they don't much fear, the prospect of having a "large" family. For one reason or another, some people just seem to have some immunity from the "family planning" dogma of the nasty contraceptive pushers, and it just doesn't register that they must somehow go against nature and try to hinder the natural flow of human life. They get pregnant, get pregnant again, and never get around to doing anything about it, and find quite often, they don't end up with quite as many children as some may fear. Author Mary Pride says that 5 or 6 children is typical in countries where "birth control" is rarely used. Compared to a "planned" family of 3 or 4 children, why not welcome a "bonus child" or two, in order to not be bothered with awkward, anti-life, unnatural contraceptives? Some people obviously don't seem to have enough "will power" for Catholic-tolerated rhythm, supposedly more "natural" than "artificial" methods, so they just don't use anything unnatural, and welcome their babies to happen when they happen. Besides, a modernizing world accumulating wealth and tools, should be more free to breed more naturally, welcoming human populations to grow more seemingly "out of control."

None of those excuses you suggest for breeding naturally, would apply to me. Ignorance, poverty, lack of access. I know quite a lot about it, "no sex" is an obvious "free" method that the populous and sometimes poor masses can easily afford, and in the big city access to nasty experimental contraceptives is all too easy. But then lots of stores also have easy access to baby food, toys, and diapers, to allow the populous masses to go on breeding within the cities as well. And many public bathrooms have baby changing counters, and I am glad to see a move back to breastfeeding in public, which is quite natural and normal. It's not just religion, but also practical reasons, that educated people sometimes choose deliberately to breed prolifically. And I hear there being a need to perhaps, coming up frequently in the discussions. What if only stupid people breed? What does that do to the human race over time? But it's too much a Nazi-like eugenics question, and not so much the practical one, of what's most fair? Well we have to let "everybody" breed, and not merely a select few.

dong20 said:
Pronatalist said:
They say of poor people, that children are their only wealth, and sex their only recreation. And the cost of contraceptives is out of the question. "Birth control" is still often associated with "dirty sex" (i.e. prostitution), for good reason, as look at all the abortion and promiscuity and divorce and side-effects and infertility issues it has led to in our society.

Again with the 'they'. Who are they, your fellow cult members?

No, "they" here doesn't seem to refer to "my fellow cult members." They would refer to people who honestly study the population issue. I have, and found the many reasons why human populations continue to grow, very valid and compelling. Population phobics seem to unnatural fear, that "evolution" somehow took a wrong turn, and made humans "too fertile," and that what populates the planet isn't just extremely pleasurable as I have read somewhere, but "too pleasurable." Well I think that many people would naturally be inclined to disagree with that accessment, and if anything, wouldn't most people, upon finding the magical global human sex drive dial, would probably crank it up a bit, to make things "interesting," than crank it down a tad. You don't see commercials on TV, for suppressing human sex drive, but more for "getting it up," Viagra and such. Sometimes they resort to abstract metaphors, like that weird too-much-smiling guy, or the water rising from the garden hose. And porn, when it isn't all bizarre and freaky, is usually of the sort of showing humans naturally reproducing and enlarging our numbers. Even preggo sex is a hot niche apparently. Condoms are rarely shown, because they are unnatural and not much erotic.

But a far more logical outlook, is that things happen for a reason, and that the "huge" world population size, actually is by design. That view is supported by the Bible, for it talks of God opening and closing the womb in the Old Testament, and the "burgeoning billions" of today, is foretold in Genesis 24:60. "thousands of millions," in the King James Version, is litterally "billions" of descendents. Well if there really is some great value and purpose to each and every human life, then it's quite logical to suspect, that maybe we needn't bother to try to "regulate" our birthrates, and that we can in fact, just leave them be high, and let human populations soar naturally and fill ever more land with more and more people, and let the human "population explosion" run its natural course, without fearing a nature vengeance Gaia-New Age religion-nonsense "correction."

The natural increase of humans was long accepted as a given, until all those nasty shoddy contraceptives hit the market, and then strangely, we were expected to actually use them? Whatever happened to "choice" (to go on having babies)?

TEXT FORMATTING WON'T PROPERLY APPLY ERROR