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

Part 3 of 4?:

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'?

The association is much stronger than we have been led to believe. Back when sex =ed babies, promiscuity wasn't so common, nor to be taken lightly. Society has a proper expectation to know who the daddies are of all these children, and hold them to doing their part to provide for them and love them. People in developing countries are quite right to suspect that a sudden flood of contraceptives may in many profound ways, damage their culture and promote a bewildering array of sexual sins.

I also state that not all of nature was meant to be "controlled" by man, and that some aspects of nature, say like the natural increase of humans, should remain "wild." As the number of women of childbearing age, naturally tends to go on increasing throughout many regions of the world, there is no corresponding obligation of the people, to somehow "compensate" and reduce their naturally high birthrates, because for one thing, most of the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, really have little to do with overall population size anyway. They have various "problems" with birth control, they want children, more and more people would be glad to live, an already occupied womb is about the most natural means of "child spacing," etc. The wrong assumption that clouds "modern" falling-away-from-faith thinking, is this stupid notion that human population supposedly must be "stabilized." Whatever for? When has world population size ever been "stable?" It's inherently "unstable," as all through history, human populations have been spreading and expanding, and that's how we got so many billions of people, built great nations, build civilization. Much of the modern conveniences we so take for granted, would be impossible still, without massive human populations to make the research pay off and keep the economy flowing. For humans "population stabilization" is really "stagnation," and contrary to God's purpose for people.

So yeah, pretty much, the more people the better. As some poster said some years ago,

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born."

Even in my forum polls I have run, I find a majority of people voting for that world population should be at least as large as it is. Perhaps they logically don't want to consider how "population reductions" might be achieved without trampling basic human rights? Just another way that human populations naturally rachet ever upwards, becoming entrenched and preparing and doing, to grow some more. Even in our social conscious, we favor continued growth in many ways. Has anybody really given much thought as to why most all babies easily to most people, are so cute and adorable? Because on both the conscious and subconscious levels, humans really do want to enlarge their numbers, and babies are an obvious symbol of that. Author Charles Provan claims that it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts to multiply and increase our numbers.

Also, if so many people, really don't much like to use an effective means of "birth control," then hadn't we be considering that world population growth may be sort of "unstoppable?" I agree with population phobics on some minor points, like that we can't keep on adding more and more people to the world, and keep doing things the same old ways. But then we can keep on adding more and more people to the world, and make a few necessary adjustments then. Sure, I don't believe in "earth control." I don't believe humans should try to control "everything." Some stupid old book, "50 Ways to Save the Earth," I think it was, spoke of "Earth Control," in having not more than 2 children, to just "replace" the parents, to keep the already huge world population from growing further. Well I don't believe that the human race should be expected to forever remain at a "reasonable" size in comparison with the earth. I see the analogy of a "pregnancy" as particularly useful. Let the planet grow "pregnant" with people, and "bulge" naturally and proudly. Just like a baby must "outgrow" the womb to escape, humans may have to "outgrow" the earth, to expand to other worlds, if ever, or it's all the more people to populate heaven. As a pregnancy progresses, there's more cells squeezing in, most everywhere, but by an intelligent and very constructive design.

If people in populous developing countries like having babies so much, don't throw condoms in their faces, but tell them that they need to start putting flush toilets within their homes for proper sanitation, because the empty fields where they could go to defecate, are being filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see. They also need access to gas and electric cooking stoves and microwave ovens, to eliminate the millions of cooking fires from their growing cities that are causing them respiratory problems. As human populations naturally grow denser and cities expand in size, we are prohibited from burning our leaves in the city, in return for the city picking them up, because all that smoke becomes unpleasant. See? We are already used to and adapting to rising human population densities throughout the planet. Cars even burn cleaner now.

And I am no moralist party pooper. I welcome there to be more sex going on throughout the world, even more people marrying younger and thus having all the more babies. But there are practical anti-disease and moral reasons to avoid "dirty sex" and promote marriage commitment and monogamy. They say that families are the building blocks of a strong society. Proper functional families make for a functional society that can far more easily deal with the prospect of perhaps populating denser and vaster. Sure, there should be some population control, but only of the rather lax sort I see in the Bible. People should make the proper family nests, not just breed willy-nilly giving no thought to morals or to the future. Illegimate children are just as valuable, but better behavior would insure that more children are legimately conceived, and better welcomed to join the naturally-growing human race.

Pronatalist said:
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.

Did I not explain it clear enough? People pairing up and marrying and having children, gives them something to do, to keep out of trouble. People tend to become more conservative when they are raising children, as they don't want for their children to repeat their mistakes.

But denied of their children, what better reason can there be, to go to war, to fight back against such barbarians that would aim to steal away their precious darling children?

Often people for simplicity's sake, may assume that average human enjoyment may stay about the same, with double the population, but then, twice as many people can then enjoy it.

Value of human race = average precious value of each person * number of people.

Simply enlarging the numbers of people alive then, helps immensely, because all the more people can then benefit.

Don't think so? Think that 12 billion people could only bring unspeakable horrors too colorful silly to imagine? Well it's already happened. When I was born in the 1960s, there were 3 billion people in the world. Now some say there's 7 billion. Double! But in many ways, the world has gotten better and more interesting, largely due to population-driven technology innovations. What do you think is driving all this fancy computer technology, video games, internet, fiber optics wiring the world? Population growth. All such complicated technology would never have been feasible to develop, for tiny little sparsely populated villages. it takes immense human populations, to make such inventions even cost-effective to produce. I expect the future would be much the same. People would find it hard to imagine, what a past world of a paltry 6 billion people would be like, as they were never born into such a sparsely-populated world.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Pronatalist.

I think you are so seriously misguided and your views so far askance from any sensible correlation with historical precedent, a basic understanding of market economics, social structure and human nature not to mention simple logic that it's futile to attempt a meaningful discussion.

The only thing you have said that I agree with to any degree is that human nature is the underlying key factor in the problems that humans face. If you believe that more people is in any way a step toward solving that problem, I can only disagree.

Look at what happens in nature when populations grow unchecked; the result is usually disastrous. Humans may be able to stave off that inevitability by virtue of our intelligence, adaptability and technology but these will only get us so far. We're not at that limit yet but most of us are able to accept that such a limit exists, I'm not sure you understand that.

At any event I'm still of the opinion that you are borderline trolling. Also, you could learn to paragraph better; it will aid readablity. Your densely packed pseudo religious ramblings are another example of why overcrowding doesn't work.

Are you seriously going to write parts 3-47/47 along these lines?
 

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 4 of 4?:

The nature worshippers have it all wrong. Nature would "prefer" if it could, that we go on pushing out our babies naturally, enlarging the human race, as humans are both part of, and transcend nature, and as we grow more numerous, humans and nature, tend to in some practical ways, become one and the same, in a populous and symbiotic/tamed/directed relationship. Does this sound strange to you? It shouldn't. It's more logical than the dribble that the tree-hugger luddite crowd has too often been spewing. If humans didn't dominate, perhaps some other creature would? Would you prefer it be the ravenous dinosaurs, as depicted in the movie "Godzilla?" In comparison, populous humans are incredibly docile, don't eat every much, and are easy to get along with, even where they tend to be crowded densely together.

But I added that people tend to be happier, when enjoying sex and reproducing. Actually, I seem to recall, some woman's magazine sex survey, finding that married couples really did enjoy the best sex life.

Actually the many practical benefits of doubling the world population, likely still apply, to the next doubling after that, and so on.

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and move on in an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

Pronatalist said:
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.

I am much more read on the population issue, than you seem to think. One of the supposed problems with continued "runaway" growth of humanity upon a finite earth, is the impossible logistics of transporting people to other worlds, anywhere fast enough to make a "dent" in the growing world population. World population grows by what? At least 200,000 more people each day? That's almost like another large city, daily, in my view. Fortunately, the planet's pretty big, and all those babies don't all come to the same country or same place. Supposedly, the colorful scare-tactic story goes, by great expense, maybe we could put, what? maybe 1000 people on some crowded spaceship and send them off to new space colonies, and then we would have to do this each and every day? Then assuming that we send the spacecraft to other stars, taking many years at least to get there, supposedly "population explosions" on spaceships would be disasterous, so we then would have to leave the fertile people on earth to breed, and ship off the least prolific people? Of course the problem with this story, which I probably botched up slightly, is that it assumes space travel technology to remain rather primitive, like the Space Shuttle, and not like the flying cars of The Jetsons cartoon, personally owned by individuals or families.

But the point is, that the technology just right now, isn't moving very encouragingly towards humans spreading to more worlds, but rather populating this one, more and more densely. Maybe it relates to God's plan for humanity, as I don't see space colonization in the Bible anyway. I do like that sci-fi dares to explore that optimistic prospect though, to encourage more people to "think outside the box." So that's a practical reason why I tend to be down on squandering money rushing into outer space, and very up on welcoming nations to populate with people more and more densely. Plus, it will take far vaster and denser populations to develop and motivate the necessary space exploration technologies, if ever. Right now, it's far more economically practical to send robots to Mars, than people. Also, the scare-tactic story points out, that due to exponential human population growth, another doubling of world population, even if we could transport the people, would make Mars and the moon "earth-full" in what? 50 years or so? Practically speaking, it's easier to make "spaceship" population arcologies, that don't actually fly anywhere, and to "camp" in one's own backyard, then we don't have to actually transport the people very far from where they were born.

No joke, increasing density really is the most palatable answer to the populous masses. A little urban sprawl here and there. Go on building more cities and towns, like we are used to doing already.

Pronatalist said:
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.

And how is all this disease to be transmitted? A practical reason for monogamy, is that it forms a "closed system" that locks out Sexually Transmitted Diseases, or STDs. How does one catch a disease, from a partner who doen't have that disease? Monogamy allows for reproductive fluids to be shared, in a more sanitary manner that transmits human life rather than disease. Of course, were it not for the vital purpose of procreation, it would be logical to question just how sanitary it is to be sharing bodily fluids, and whether we should just turn into prudes and not have sex at all.

Or are you perhaps speaking of how disease epidemics might run rampant through human populations that have grown far too vast and dense? But look at the evidence more objectively. Dense population is hardly the only factor. People who are well-fed, and practice good sanitary habits, tend to have high immunity to sickness, especially when vaccinated and with proper access to medical care. I think it wrong to assume that so many "modern" innovations came about merely for our selfish convenience. They are also population accomodations, welcoming human populations to continue to naturally grow denser and vaster, but more comfortably and safely. That's really what vaccines are all about, about how to crowd in more people closer together, and avoid certain "unpleasant" effects that might supposedly result. Nor do I agree with "requiring" vaccinations, because the objections of some religious people or home-schoolers may be valid? Do we really know what's in them? The principle of vaccination doesn't at all require 100% compliance, but rather a certain percentage, to reduce the effective population density through which contagious disease vectors might spread. If effective density is low enough, unvaccinated people are quite safe as well. Also, humans already have a fairly effective natural immune system that will tolerate low level exposure to many germs, and fight them off without even being consciously aware of the germs. Our skin and guts crawl with microorganisms, and yet our immune system normally keeps them in check, and they say that we need certain bacterias in our digestive system, to aid in digestion even.

You claim that faith and psuedo-faith/philosophy-based arguments such as some of mine, don't deal very well with actual reality. Not so, for in some respects, human birthrates may naturall tend to in some respects, remain "out of control." Well maybe human reproduction is becoming such a natural, "mighty force of nature" that it's impossible to control anyway, without devasting the human race. For each person who dies, 3 more are born to "replace" him or her. Supposedly Thomas Malthus claimed that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Oh really? Well what parents can wait "until hell freezes over" for the overall population level to finally dip slightly, in order to enjoy having their precious darling children? Fortunely, much of the supposedly "uneducated" world found a far better alternative. What if we just go on and procreate naturally regardless, and welcome human populations to accumulate? Then human birthrates can long outpace deaths, no need for excessive "waiting" to have our children, and world population density can rise naturally as well, especially since the world while no longer "empty" of people, neither is "full" either, and humans multiply among the most gradually of God's creatures, usually having but 1 baby at a time. But then the world must come to be more designed, over time, for higher human population density, what I have advocated all along.

Since this was a long-composed post of mine, it may take me some time to get around to responding to the other replies.
 

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: Have people no vision or imagination of how a planet comes to hold more people?

Pronatalist.

I think you are so seriously misguided and your views so far askance from any sensible correlation with historical precedent, a basic understanding of market economics, social structure and human nature not to mention simple logic that it's futile to attempt a meaningful discussion.

The only thing you have said that I agree with to any degree is that human nature is the underlying key factor in the problems that humans face. If you believe that more people is in any way a step toward solving that problem, I can only disagree.

Look at what happens in nature when populations grow unchecked; the result is usually disastrous. Humans may be able to stave off that inevitability by virtue of our intelligence, adaptability and technology but these will only get us so far. We're not at that limit yet but most of us are able to accept that such a limit exists, I'm not sure you understand that.

At any event I'm still of the opinion that you are borderline trolling. Also, you could learn to paragraph better; it will aid readablity. Your densely packed pseudo religious ramblings are another example of why overcrowding doesn't work.

Are you seriously going to write parts 3-47/47 along these lines?

Did I say anywhere, that I expected human populations to go on growing "forever?" No, I did not say that, as I don't see that in the Bible. So I qualify my claims, if needed by "for the forseeable future."

I find it irresponsible how liberals rush to the policy-making phase, before their ill-defined problems are even well-defined or understood. They certainly have an obvious anti-freedom agenda that should never be trusted, especially considering their dishonest biases and colorful gloom-and-doom stories, that only their "solution," but of course, can possibly fix?

So ridiculous endless extrapolations into the future, of what "unchecked" world population growth may supposedly lead to, are largely irrelevant.

Most any math or statistics student, should know of the folly of how unreliable extrapolations from known data become, projected very far out into the future.

What I am saying, is really logically little different, than that that people say, when they point out how unrealistic and impractical a future world population of a paltry 2 billion people would be. I just take it to a slightly different degree, and am more verbose about my explanations to back up my claims.

The planet isn't getting any bigger? And yet there are 3 perceptional dimensions that the naturally-expanding human population can yet grow into: outwards, inwards, and upwards. Plenty to allow for the forseeable future. I can explain these 3 perceptional dimensions if you like, but I was aiming for a shorter reply this time.

Earth worshipers: Either we control our numbers, or nature will.

Logical rebuttal: Either we control our numbers, or nature won't either. Why do you think we are getting so numerous now? We shall have to ADAPT. And embracing that reality with more deliberate pronatalism, will help us ADAPT more readily.
 

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
Tell that to anyone who's ever got some in the eye. :wink:

Okay then, sperm is mostly harmless, at least when shot where it was meant to go, into the baby-making hole. A little toilet paper or facial tissue easily cleans up any "spillage" or "leakage."

I like your muppet scientist avatar. It's about right, for many "scientists" who get their bizarre unscientific claims on the news, really are raving lunatics, sort of like the muppet scientist. Not to be taken too seriously.
 

eddyabs

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Posts
1,294
Media
21
Likes
135
Points
193
Location
Little cottage in the stix
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
If England's population is to grow any larger, it means building into the green areas of England, which are slowly disappearing....if the population carries on exploding like it is, then England will become a sprawling suburban nightmare, with few green areas left unspoilt. Nobody wants this, I am a country born lad, and the thought horrifies me. The area my family has lived in for 6 generations is a Designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it's such a magical place, hills and wooded valleys, with beautiful heathland, and through its designated status, building is very much restricted. Only now I live in an urban area, when I go home, I so much appreciate it.

Who knows what the future holds....but if future generations have any sense, if the population grows to a point where it is seriously starts to eat into these green areas, then surely they will establish laws to prevent families from over pro-creating?

These views are already being specified by the UK Conservative Party (the challenges of a growing population).

I believe the majority of people would feel the same, England, let alone the Earth, cannot healthily sustain a much larger population, let alone allow its natural beauty to be corroded any further.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Pronatalist.

No offense intended but you can right all 47 parts of whatever it is your writing - I don't have the time, or inclination to read or reply to any more of it. I can't speak for others but I suspect I wouldn't be alone in finding the nearest exit from this thread.

David Brook's op-ed at least suggests some logic; that natalists can breed their way to a new polictical hegemony. I have to agree, it's an interesting concept. The only flaw being that you would likely rule a desitute (though amply populated) nation. Still, it has a following.

On a final note, you may find this interesting, it sums up my view of natalism and has the added bonus of relieving me of the need to write any more.

Thanks, Google.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I like your muppet scientist avatar. It's about right, for many "scientists" who get their bizarre unscientific claims on the news, really are raving lunatics, sort of like the muppet scientist. Not to be taken too seriously.

Hello, kettle, pot calling. You're black.

It's pretty clear that you have an anti-contraception/overpopulation agenda/fetish. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if you're a religious nut - I hesitate to label people as such until I'm fairly certain that's the case - but your science/reality denials suggest it. Regardless, how about starting your own thread on the subject, so the rest of us will know where to aim.
 

pavement

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Posts
413
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Location
New Zealand
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Here is a suprisingly prescient article from the Ladies Home Journal from 1901.

Ladies+Home+Journal+Dec+1900+paleofuture+paleo-future.jpg (image)


Now that we are here what advances are in store for us in the next 100 years? What are your predictions?
Coincidentally I 1st saw the original post as a program was on TV about changes in the last 100 years or so in NZ by reviewing stats.

Much more meat was eaten by people along with much more salt and sugar 34 & 80 pounds respectively with 7 meals a day. 3666 calories now consumed each day 1% more than in USA and 20% more than in Japan but 1/2 as much income on food 364 kilos of meat a year making NZ the 3rd biggest meat consumers much more now in chicken. Also biggest Ice cream eaters 27 litres a year 1/3 overweight 2nd highest car ownership with a car for every 2 people giving 500 bags of cement worth from the tailpipes with a foot that's 6 hectares a person 8 1/2x bigger than an Indian
The program has just ended by saying that how accurate using stats to predict the future will be only time will tell.


But I predict it won't




So do the Sari Sheldons and be off with ya
 

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: Population "stabilization" is far more risky than continued natural growth.

Part 1 of 2:

Pronatalist said:
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.

So what I stated, doesn't make casual readers enough aware of my views? Huh? Perhaps what I said, wasn't verbose enough? Or is it that the casual readers little minds are too befuddled with "education" to understand logic?

This "tripe" isn't worth responding to, but you just had to anyway, lest there be any more pronatalist converts? Like all the stupid ads for contraceptives weren't all that convincing, and people are just looking for any excuse at all, to enjoy sex "bareback" or "what (babies) happens, happens? Except for you to come along and save the day with your offered opinions.

Pronatalist said:
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.

I didn't say that doubling the population, was a magical cure-all for all wars. You seem to be responding to something here, that I didn't actually say. What I said, was that having children gives people something constructive to do, to keep them out of trouble. Being denied their children, can very well be a strong motivator to take up arms and go to war against the barbarians who would steal away their children.

Doubling the population does not cause more war, because the world has always had problems with war. With just 2 people in the world, Eve sinned and partook of the forbidden fruit. With 4 people in the world, Cain murdered his brother Abel. Now tell me, do humans murder 1 out of 4 people, through war? Maybe through abortion, and while the numbers of people who die through war tend to be somewhat large, but nowhere near large enough to "control" population growth, they aren't anywhere near 1 in 4 of the world population. More often, people survive and suffer, but 1.7 billion people haven't died in modern times due to war.

More population sometimes tends to have the opposite effect. You can't get away with doing much of anything against the rules, because so many people are watching. There's safety in numbers, or so they say.

Some sparsely populated places in the world seem to breed violence, and some heavily populated places are rather civilized, at least on the apparent surface.

And many poor people aren't much even looking for the "best" land, but for clear title to the land they already live on. Adolf Hitler was a proponent of "growing room" for the German people wasn't he? But history has since shown, that human populations can grow without such excessive "growing room" after all. Places like India or The Philippines have a person per acre of land, and yet they go on growing. The idea of frontiers and of conquest for land, seems to be somewhat passe or tarnished in today's world, as the planet is already sort of "jammed" up with people and all the land claimed by all the nations. The world tends to look unkindly towards agressor nations that don't respect the interests of the global community, and will step in to remove such dicators from power, as we saw with Iraq. People who don't grow food anyway, generally don't need much land, but merely a place to live, something that increased urbanization of the planet, can obviously help provide. Of course no need to move to the city, when one can wait for the city to grow to them. Actually, people depopulated the countryside moving to cities in search of jobs and opportunity. It would be cool for people to move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities, as there comes to be so many of them.

Pronatalist said:
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.

No it isn't easier to reduce the birth rate, well unless it just magically comes down without any effort, something that the "demographic transition" theory seems to imply on the surface, but I don't think it's true, due to the underlying rampand contraceptive peddling.

A "high" overall birthrate is natural, as while families don't really average all that large, merely an average of a modest 3 children per family, fuels further population expansion as successive generations continue to grow larger and more populous, than the previous. But "controlling" birthrates is unnatural, and problematic, because they say "You can't fool all the people, all of the time." Some people obviously aren't going to buy the "we must control population" line. There are "technological optimists I read in a college textbook, that convenient left out the whole another category of people of faith and people with "religious objections" to "birth control." People naturally resist being told what to do in such an intimate setting as their own private bedrooms, and then there's the very valid question of "By what authority?"

We can go get our pets fixed, because we are their "higher power" and thus entitled to decide for them, whether they get to breed or not. But who are humans' higher power? The government? Not at all, especially by modern democracy/republic theories including such concepts as "majority rule," "checks and balances," and "the consent of the governed." People in government, are fellow human beings much the same as us, thus no "higher" than us. God is our "higher power," and God has clearly commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Why? To give us direction, and because God knew such questions would eventually come up. We already have our answer. Asking the question over and over, won't change the answer. The answer is clear. It's not something really "debatable," as our rights are God-given, not merely governmental whim.

Now what's easier than "controlling" something? Often, "not controlling" something. Leaving it to nature or to the powers that be. It's often easier to "do nothing" than to "do something." And "doing nothing" or "letting human populations grow naturally," does conveniently avoid some thorny bad questions. Like "How do we force people to lower their family size?" Simple. We welcome them to have all the children that they have. We don't have to trick or deceive or force them into having fewer children. We respect life, or their decisions, or God. Like a forest fire too big to "control," we sit back and watch it do its thing, keep out of its way, hopefully something intelligently guided and constructive, which most people of faith suspect that human population growth already is useful and constructive and intelligently guided by God.

Once again, a lower population does not go along with a higher standard of living, because it's so easy to find examples to the contrary. Many sparsely populated places have much poverty, and many highly populated regions at least have basic utility services. Actually, I do think that regions do tend to "grow" their way out of poverty. Think about it. How much more likely are people to get connected to the electrical grid, when the city is all around them, and the electrical utility wires all around? That works better than for some little village 50 miles remote from "civilization," that visiting missionaries must use solar power to charge their computer laptops to keep in email contact with their friends/family at home.

Perhaps what you are referring to, is a rather loose correlation between higher standard of living and lower birthrates. But which causes which? Actually, a higher standard of living provides more distractions from childbearing, more excuses to put off childbearing. Correlation does not equal causation. Nor does it indicate the direction of the causation, or whether it be a simple or complex relationship involving so many factors that it's hard to trace the "cause and effect" paths. But there are also many well-to-do people who let their families grow large as well. And people would not trade their children for other people's money, so who holds the real wealth then?
 

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: Population "stabilization" is far more risky than continued natural growth.

Part 2 of 2:

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.

There are so many ways to produce energy, there's no excuse for the recent energy price spikes. Gasoline was $1.30 only about 4 years ago? Is world population significantly larger than it was 4 years ago? Can toddlers drive cars? No, but corporations often behave in monopolistic ways, especially when just a few get control of the market, as with the oil corporations now. They can just layoff workers or cut back production, willy-nilly, at will, to jack up prices and exploit people. People almost worship "capitalism," but do a little reading and investigating, and one will find out that much of what goes on, isn't fair free-market capitalism, but indirect legal? bribery, buying votes/influence, special interest groups getting way to much consideration, rich power-mongers behind the scenes pulling politicial strings, etc.

There's plenty of food available, for people with money to buy it. That's the real problem with famine and war. When people's crops fail, an unfair, exploitive economic system, denies some people much access to making beneficial transactions. And population "control" thinking just buys into the injustice/conspiracies all the more, by treating people as a mere expendable/tradable commodity.

Technology improvements can't come fast enough? Oh really? Already the technology seems to be spinning around often too fast. Just when people finally get convinced to buy a DVD player, now they are nearly obsolete already? Now we "need" HD-DVD or Bluray for our HD TVs? And yet they can't even settle the format war and go with a standard? It's wrong to portray human population growth and growth of technology/methods as in a "race" to keep ahead of global starvation. That's Malthusian poverty religion thinking. That's globalist agenda anti-freedom thinking. Because human population growth helps fuel technology growth, and technology growth helps support population growth, wouldn't they sort of automatically self-pace each other naturally, in a morally positive vicious circle beneficial to most everybody? Grow the population faster, and the technology comes faster, so it can come fast enough. But actually, much of what is needed technology-wise, is already available, not all that frequent "breakthroughs" are really needed. Hydro-electric dams, more nuclear power plants to power growing cities, more flush toilets for the developing world. All these things are scalable, and we already know well how to do them, that is, if we really wanted to?
 

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: I wouldn't want to live in Europe, because they seem too baby-phobic.

If England's population is to grow any larger, it means building into the green areas of England, which are slowly disappearing....if the population carries on exploding like it is, then England will become a sprawling suburban nightmare, with few green areas left unspoilt. Nobody wants this, I am a country born lad, and the thought horrifies me. The area my family has lived in for 6 generations is a Designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it's such a magical place, hills and wooded valleys, with beautiful heathland, and through its designated status, building is very much restricted. Only now I live in an urban area, when I go home, I so much appreciate it.

Who knows what the future holds....but if future generations have any sense, if the population grows to a point where it is seriously starts to eat into these green areas, then surely they will establish laws to prevent families from over pro-creating?

These views are already being specified by the UK Conservative Party (the challenges of a growing population).

I believe the majority of people would feel the same, England, let alone the Earth, cannot healthily sustain a much larger population, let alone allow its natural beauty to be corroded any further.

But isn't much of the European Union population stagnant, so why all the liberal whining against further, sluggish population growth? An irrational fear of "outsiders" or immigration?

Remaining "open" or green areas, are about the first logical option for expanding human habitat for expanding human populations. Of course, high density housing is another, and building inwards, putting more people into the same space in cities, an option that some "environmental" extremists favor ironically calling for increased population density to supposedly keep people out of what is supposedly left of nature. I advocate urban sprawl, because as more people become alive, they obviously need some place to live, and the first option of many people, wouldn't be to just pack more and more people into cities and jack up housing prices, but to develop new areas and build additional housing, to keep housing affordable to the populous masses.

If people have a God-given seemingly "unlimited" right to procreate, then perhaps, at least in a few regions of the world, unless they wish to see if they can emmigrate elsewhere, they don't forever have the "right" to live in "unspoilt" countryside, as such places presumably may become harder to find. You can't have your cake and eat it too, don't they say?

The needs of a huge human population, logically rank far beyond nostagia of the "beauty" of green areas. Wild or open areas may be nice, and may serve some purpose, but a place for people to live, serves a far higher purpose and higher land values emphasize that. People have the right to procreate and "eat into green areas," in China, in England, in Mexico, or wherever they happen to live. Families can't possibly "over procreate," because that is a wrong values judgement that claims that the 10th child is somehow of less value than the first, something that most any large family would naturally know to be untrue. See how much socialist/athiest thinking has infected the reasoning of the people, to say such things? Rather than denying people life, wouldn't it make more sense, in some hypothetical unlikely future, to prohibit building at less that a certain number of stories or floors? If land was hypothetically scarce, that doesn't prevent people from procreating, just merely limits how many people can have a lot of square footage on "ground level." Rather than waste land, houses could be built what 3 floors high at least? Just an idea, not at all practical at the present time.

I have to laugh at a silly newspaper article I read some years ago, of stupid urban yuppies whining about cows mooing behind their back yards. Little minor "growing pains" of the city it seems. To which I want to tell them, "You silly urban yuppies who know nothing of country ways. Quit whining. The farmers were there first, and you people just kept on having your babies (or people moved in from the countryside), and kept on growing the city, and then you whine at cows around your home?" The farmers didn't complain as the population grew, and populated all the way to the edge of the farms, and the farmers had more customers to buy their crops. But the farmers were there first. Deal with it, silly urban yuppies!
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Pronatalist:

In your responses to this thread, you have demonstrated that you don't understand sociology, economics, demographics, or mathematics. You've demonstrated that you aren't clear on how finite resources work, and you have dismissed overpopulation concerns by saying... pretty much nothing. You've blathered on for pages without saying anything of substance.

Well done. Who were you before you created this profile?

Oh, and by the way, I've wasted enough time reading your rambling, substance-free responses. Hint: Succintness is a skill. Try making readable reponses.
 

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: Pronatalism does, in a populous society, help unite the people to work together.

Hello, kettle, pot calling. You're black.

It's pretty clear that you have an anti-contraception/overpopulation agenda/fetish. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if you're a religious nut - I hesitate to label people as such until I'm fairly certain that's the case - but your science/reality denials suggest it. Regardless, how about starting your own thread on the subject, so the rest of us will know where to aim.

I'm generally not one to fragment discussions over many threads.

However, there is an "overpopulation" thread already in the "Et Cetera, Et Cetera" folder, that I have been meaning to get around to replying to. If you post to me in that thread, I will likely see it as it moves up to the top of the active threads ranking.

Not sure if I am a religious nut? Well I do list many other practical pragmatic reasons for allowing for human population growth, not just religion, such as "respect for nature" in that the natural increase of humans is quite natural, and I don't think all of nature (i.e. human population increase) should be "controlled" by man.

I also favor small government and personal responsibility, concepts that could conceivably allow world population growth to "run wild," as some of the population phobic power-mad globalists, conveniently may quiet admit that only a tyranical "world government" could supposedly reign in world population growth and prevent "renegade" nations from perhaps trying to "outbreed" their neighbors. They may want to hush-hush that idea, because it would be a difficult sale to a gullible public, still thinking much of what goes on is about freedom and "choice." I also see human population growth, philosophically as "beautiful," as it makes for curious and beneficial change for humans. It furthers the human race, which I think could be a reason why even some athiests claim to be pro-life and possibly pro-population.

And if humans ever are to spread to Mars or whatever, it isn't likely going to come by wishful thinking, but more likely, by our growing numbers "bursting" the confines of its original "womb"-metaphor planet.

After all, like a growing child, the human race wasn't designed to stay small forever. Maybe it's coming time for we humans to "grow up" and our presense upon the planet, to get bigger.
 

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: Predicting the Next 100 Years — But what are we doing really, to make it better?

Pronatalist:

In your responses to this thread, you have demonstrated that you don't understand sociology, economics, demographics, or mathematics. You've demonstrated that you aren't clear on how finite resources work, and you have dismissed overpopulation concerns by saying... pretty much nothing. You've blathered on for pages without saying anything of substance.

Well done. Who were you before you created this profile?

What I have demonstrated, is that I don't believe in this trendy new religion of poverty "environmentalism," as what much of what the so-called "environmentalists" do, is really anti-development, and seeking to cause the very problems that they claim to fear. That's rather counter-productive, and ignorance should be no excuse, because they have been told that what they are doing, is wrong, so how can they not know better?

No wonder we get terms like "green nazis" and "watermellon environmentalists." Which means that they may claim to be "green" on the outside, feigning concern for "the environment," but inside they are red communists, just looking for a handy excuse to control people.

NIMBY - Not In My BackYard
BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Neither "environmental" philosophy works in an increasingly populous world. We have to put, something or other, somewhere. There's no better options anymore.

Who was I before? Pronatalist. I have hosted several forums for years. But I am new to this specific board. I have been a regular for years over at www.overpopulation.com forum, before they changed out their forum software, disrupting the discussions. I am also a regular over at the Philippines pro-life forum. Just google "pronatalist overpopulation," and you may just discover some of the places I hang out?

BTW, I am almost a math whiz, and scored in the 90th percentile on the math portion of my SAT. BTW, I scored "genius" on some internet IQ test, but I suspect it may have exxagerated slightly or have been rigged, as they wanted to sell me a more complicated analysis.
 

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: Just because I am pronatalist, doesn't mean "Go sow your wild oats."

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.

Nowhere did I say anything promoting promiscuity, nor that men shouldn't be held to being a father and raising their children, or at the very least, paying their child support.

If some married couples are so fertile, that a man can be a daddy to dozens of children, with 1 woman, than have at it, as I don't ask that people use any means of "birth control," but I believe more traditionally, that it ought to be that babies happen when they happen. That they are quite possibly, wonderful blessings from God.

My main objection to apparently Biblically-tolerated polygamy, is that slick guys will hog up all the women, leaving no wife for me. But I do think for some people, in some cultures, it may work. But it's too complicated for me. But we Americans I have heard, practice "serial polygamy." We too often have many wives, just not all at the same time (contraceptive-aggravated divorce).
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Re: Predicting the Next 100 Years — But what are we doing really, to make it better?



What I have demonstrated, is that I don't believe in this trendy new religion of poverty "environmentalism," as what much of what the so-called "environmentalists" do, is really anti-development, and seeking to cause the very problems that they claim to fear. That's rather counter-productive, and ignorance should be no excuse, because they have been told that what they are doing, is wrong, so how can they not know better?

No wonder we get terms like "green nazis" and "watermellon environmentalists." Which means that they may claim to be "green" on the outside, feigning concern for "the environment," but inside they are red communists, just looking for a handy excuse to control people.

NIMBY - Not In My BackYard
BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

Neither "environmental" philosophy works in an increasingly populous world. We have to put, something or other, somewhere. There's no better options anymore.

Who was I before? Pronatalist. I have hosted several forums for years. But I am new to this specific board. I have been a regular for years over at Overpopulation.Com » forum, before they changed out their forum software, disrupting the discussions. I am also a regular over at the Philippines pro-life forum. Just google "pronatalist overpopulation," and you may just discover some of the places I hang out?

BTW, I am almost a math whiz, and scored in the 90th percentile on the math portion of my SAT. BTW, I scored "genius" on some internet IQ test, but I suspect it may have exxagerated slightly or have been rigged, as they wanted to sell me a more complicated analysis.

Better. That was readable.