Predicting the Next 100 Years

[B_tallbig]

Good. Then you should be glad i'm here.



Do you know what happens when too many mice find themselves in a small, crowded enclosure? They start to turn on each other after a while. They become restless, irritable, and attack each other. Animals need their space and humans are no different.




India is growing in economic leaps and bounds in comparison to where they were 20, even 10, years ago but that has to do with economic globalisation and liberalisation, not population growth. They're still struggling with poverty in many areas due to their population already bursting at the seams.



If you don't believe in using birth control because of the side effects then you must be against medicine in all forms. Most to all medication have side effects. Personally, I stopped taking the birth control pill a while ago because I thought my body needed a break but i've done that with medication that wasn't birth control. What do you suggest for women whose doctors have told them they shouldn't have children? What you advocate is irresponsibility.

BTW, are you willing to take care of every child born that is unwanted or impoverished? If not, then you have no argument to stand on. Put your money where your mouth is.

You still haven't provided an answer as to how to eradicate poverty. If you did that, I might be able to buy into your theory. All you have to do is look at the statistics. Most poverty sufferers in the world are under the age of 15.




:lmao:

You've clearly shown you aren't an expert and don't google nearly as much as you should.



Now you're just rambling again. Oh, and reread Brave New World. You didn't get it the first time 'round.

I agree 100% with you. His line of thinking only contribute to more poverty and suffering to millions of children.

 

[eddyabs]

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



So is England such a backward socialist nation, that they can't possibly figure out how to grow, by a pidly 15% in 20 years? An entire 20 years to prepare and get ready?

Nice try as a side step? Huh? Because I said I am not impressed with socialistic Europe? Did you know that England is a part of the European Union?

No...Really!!

Did you know that Europe was ahead in jacking up gasoline prices, before the U.S.? By saying something against Europe, that includes England, so how do you think I am "skirting the issue" or "changing the subject?"

Because,now listen carefully....because, I was talking about ENGLAND....geddit!???? Not Europe, not the EEC, not the EU.....

E N G L A N D

.....I hope that's clear for you now I spelt it for you.

And by the way, what the hell have gasoline prices got to do with anything I'm saying?

Is England a land of liberal crybabies? So I hear they are growing more dense with people, but not all that fast. Why? Because as they say, you can't fool all the people all the time. Maybe people are getting tired of "planning" their families, and typical family size is rising a bit. There's a conspiracy theory I have heard, that even "too much" prosperity can encourage people to have more children, hence the unjust income tax was invented, to drain the economy, to help make sure not too many people prosper too much.

As who says? Please show us where these references you make come from?

Last I heard, there was no shortage of air. But then, perhaps the UN plans to tax air as well, in order to manufacture scarcity and make us all their slaves?

The main purpose of green areas, are to give the space left between all the people, something to do. Would we fill less "guilty" to be filling the planet with ever more people, were it all barren empty rock lands, something like desert or the moon? Since human populations continue to grow, it should be evident that humans need to expand their habitat to prevent overcrowding. Green areas are an obvious target to expand human populations into.

Were it barren and empty like the Moon because the Human population has taken away most of the green spaces, then there would be no air to breathe...what part of this do you not understand? And unlike you, I believe in protecting the natural flora and fauna of this planet....your mother, your protector.....whom you seem to believe should be raped, abused and exploited.

You call me a liberal? Trying to be funny? I am about as conservative as they come. But consider this. I hear that the conservatives of today, are the liberals of yesterday. What does that mean? That means that the social mores are declining apparently. By standards of decades ago, many "conservatives" of today are much more flexible and tolerant of things, that maybe they shouldn't be, than how people used to be. For example, I don't seem to have much to say against overly skimpy bikinis, or reproductive action porn. Should I say more against such things?

I am a Conservative too, and conservatism is to preserve, to protect. You're world is my vision of Hell, my worst nightmare come true, and I suspect, as is obvious from these pages, that you are very much in the minority in your views.

It would be nice to see you being capable of making a point succinctly, instead of the reams of rambles you leave on this thread.

 

[B_tallbig]

No...Really!!



Because,now listen carefully....because, I was talking about ENGLAND....geddit!???? Not Europe, not the EEC, not the EU.....

E N G L A N D

.....I hope that's clear for you now I spelt it for you.

And by the way, what the hell have gasoline prices got to do with anything I'm saying?



As who says? Please show us where these references you make come from?





Were it barren and empty like the Moon because the Human population has taken away most of the green spaces, then there would be no air to breathe...what part of this do you not understand? And unlike you, I believe in protecting the nautural flora and fauna of this planet....your mother, your protector, who you believe should be raped, abused and exploited.



I am a Conservative too, and conservatism is to preserve, to protect. You're world is my vision of Hell, my worst nightmare come true, and I suspect, as is obvious from these pages, that you are very much in the minority in your views.

It would be nice to see you being capable of making a point succinctly, instead of the reams of rambles you leave on this thread.

The terrible thing is that he isnt alone millions of people think like him.

 

[eddyabs]

The terrible thing is that he isnt alone millions of people think like him.

Isn't it incredible that as Humans we can be truly worlds apart? Let's throw Earth to the dogs shall we.

 

[rob_just_rob]

The terrible thing is that he isnt alone millions of people think like him.

Ah, but he isn't thinking. He's proselytizing.

Pronatalist's posts are full of fancies, unfounded logic, and breezy dismissals of real-world problems. And conspicuously empty of facts, references, and an understanding of human psychology.

Yes, there are a lot of people who think - or rather, fail to think - like him. Fortunately, they're part of a shrinking minority.

 

[B_tallbig]

Isn't it incredible that as Humans we can be truly worlds apart? Let's throw Earth to the dogs shall we.

Yes it really boogles the mind. I dont want to imagine a human world population of 12-15 billion or more .

 

[B_tallbig]

Ah, but he isn't thinking. He's proselytizing.

Pronatalist's posts are full of fancies, unfounded logic, and breezy dismissals of real-world problems. And conspicuously empty of facts, references, and an understanding of human psychology.

Yes, there are a lot of people who think - or rather, fail to think - like him. Fortunately, they're part of a shrinking minority.

Small but a dangerous minority . Those people are breeding like rabbits .

 

[eddyabs]

Ah, but he isn't thinking. He's proselytizing.

Pronatalist's posts are full of fancies, unfounded logic, and breezy dismissals of real-world problems. And conspicuously empty of facts, references, and an understanding of human psychology.

Yes, there are a lot of people who think - or rather, fail to think - like him. Fortunately, they're part of a shrinking minority.

He should take some notes from that, succinctly put, and truthful. Very readable, and personable.

Nice.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Small but a dangerous minority . Those people are breeding like rabbits .

"Been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding" - Harvey Danger.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Wars over fresh water.

 

[B_tallbig]

Wars over fresh water.

Yes in a several decades the wars will be about clean water and the remain resources.

 

[pronatalist]

Re: The world may grow more "crowded," but not necessarily uncomfortably so.

Part 1 of 2:

... We will have medical options to make us immortal, i mean, every time someone dies it's like a library is being burnt, this has to stop, i am sure that we will solve overpopulation, just as long as their are enough artisans and cleaver people, in the long run these advancements may need the poor to become sterile if they wanted to extend their life, which is one minor bad.

If people can remain healthy and live an even longer time, so much the better. People already live well beyond their reproductive years, so it is wrong to assume that people living a longer time supposedly adds to "overpopulation." People don't want that kind of "help," in which they are asked to sell their soul or birthright, for something that they need, like health or food. You can have people being nearly "immoral" and "uncontrolled" birthrates, and it can work well and good well into the forseeable future, for that hypothetical situation isn't really all that much different, than the numerical situation right now. Deaths have a diminished effect on population size, in a healthy and growing population, because the younger generations are naturally larger and more populous than just a few generations ago, due to compounded exponential growth. That's a reason why even with sluggish contraceptive-hampered "modern" birthrates, for every person who dies, on a second-by-second basis, 3 more people are born to "replace" him or her. Because people die more from their elderly years, while those giving birth to babies, are of younger generations that are already more numerous than those of a generation or two older. That relates to the demographic term "demographic momentum." A growing population is prone to go on growing, due to the rising numbers of women of childbearing age, from past growth.

It's a common myth that people living longer adds to global "overpopulation," but it's not true that we need to get rid of the old people, to have enough room for all the young people coming along, because in a growing population, the young easily outnumber the old already. A better argument could be made for getting rid of gravesites, to make more room for the living, but land isn't so scarce as to have to make such tradeoffs anyway. I wouldn't mind getting rid of some rich yuppie golfcourses, if there was really any excuse of needing the land now for some greater purpose. Golf is almost some rich yuppie sport, by which rich people make fashionable their unproductivity, and thumb their nose at the rest of us hard-working people. But then I never was much of a sports fan.

I agree with what you say likening death to the burning of a library. What a huge waste, especially for people who supposedly die "in the prime of their life," or in the middle of working on some project that at least they consider to be important. That would relate somehow to the Bible saying that death itself is one of the last enemies to be defeated in the Biblical endtimes. God must have put eternity in our hearts for some reason. This frail human body isn't immortal, but our spirit is, and so there must be some "hereafter" for it.

What's "scary" about the "immortality" question, is that if hypothetically, people rarely if ever die, and more just keep on getting born, that's almost like the ultimate "imbalance," as some pessimists might like to call it. The world will then just naturally grow denser and denser with people, people just accumulating most everywhere. Supposedly Thomas Malthus said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. I don't believe that, and most of the world went on, like they don't believe it either. Centuries later, the human crowds now are indeed bigger and closer together, but we only grew 6-fold in the 2 centuries since Malthus's time, and in many respects, quite a lot of things have got a lot better, not just "in spite" of but more so "because" of our growth in numbers. I have long called for letting world population and density go on rising naturally, because human populations already grow gradually enough to allow supposedly intelligent human beings ample time to prepare and adapt. People seem to prefer the city already, depopulating the countryside to move to the city in search of opportunity, jobs, or excitement, long before their growing numbers would seem to make "city life" inevitable.

You talk of artisans and clever people. I recall an episode of Star Trek TNG, in which some con-ripoff-artist, was using his powers as a spaceship captain, to masquerade himself as to be some sort of "god" coming along to fulfill some ancient prophecy or legend. Captain Piccard sought to publicly expose him for the fraud that he was, and duplicated his "powers" with his own spaceship. There was some reference to the planet having been overpopulated and polluted, but the people fixed it. Noticably (at least to me) conspicuous was the absense of anything being said to the effect of them getting their growing numbers "under control." So what actually happened? I think they never did achieve any population "reduction," but rather completed the old dirty technologies and finished developing them, so that the people could indeed live close to one another in big cities, without all the former problems, using newer cleaner technologies. They adapted, and that's how the problems of "overpopulation" and pollution were mitigated, much like how most people seem to be working for now. Anyway, Captain Piccard's crew discovered how they were hiding their spaceship, and boarded the spaceship and disarmed the con-artist "god" wannabe. (Apparently Star Trek never very well respected "religion," being based too much upon Gene Roddenberry's athiesm, but also upon his optimism.)

In another episode in which Data had to be clever and show the people that they were vunerable and could not defend their tiny planet colony that really belonged to another race expanding its own (growing?) population to more worlds, the 12 or 70 survivors of some crash landing a century prior, were never scolded for having multiplied prolifically for many generations, apparently at the full rate of human fecundity, to some 12,000 people, so many that shuttlecraft couldn't move them off the planet in the necessary 3 days required before the alien colonists remove the human "infestation." Transporters wouldn't work throught the strange atmosphere. The planet's atmosphere distorted everything transported so that it rematerialized deformed. Piccard and crew went to nearly impossible lengths, to find a suitable diplomatic solution, that finally got him the necessary 3 weeks to evacuate all the fellow humans. Come to think of it, all those people must have rather "crowded" Piccard's spaceship, until they could be dropped off to some other ship(s) or planet.

... Having ur brain transplanted into a younger, sexier you, or maybe even a cloned pornstar, i say this because we have made so many advancements in nerve rejoining in the last few years, that as the sweedish researchers have done with monkeys earlier this year, it would soon be able to slice spines and rejoin them onto new bodies, which may be younger cloned versions of you or pornstars, and everytime u got old, u could just undergo this maybe expensive procedure again and be young again.

I think you have overlooked some very serious problems with this "body transplantion" thing whatever you are talking about. Still the brain is too old. Also, I think we would hypothetically find, that brains and bodies aren't nearly so compatible as you would imagine. To be in somebody else's body could bring terrible pain, that other brains have long been used to masking somehow. A brain wouldn't fit so well in another body, like changing clothes. They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks? That could tend to be the case with brains as well. There would be some limits as to how much the nerve impulses could adapt to another body. And who's bodies would we use? Yours? Mine? Don't think so. I suggest you watch the movie The Island to get a better idea what's wrong with growing "replacement" organs in other people's bodies, even if supposedly compatible clones of oneself.

A far better approach to pursue, if ever remotely feasible, to combat aging, if there is any possible man-made cure anyway?, would be to program Star Trek-like transporters, to simply "undo" some of the aging damage each time a person transports. Already in Star Trek, don't the transporters block dangerous microorganisms and sometimes weapons?

Very, very cheap and clean energy, IE Fusion

That could be one direction that continued "uncontrolled" human population growth, could be leading to. Very cheap and clean energy. They say that "Necessity is the mother of invention." Don't you suppose that "monsterous" sized cities teeming with people, naturally lead to things like clean and cheap energy, largely because of the apparent need, and having so many clever creative minds, that while nobody can figure it out, they collectively figure it out, incrementally, like how inventions have been going historically already?

 

[pronatalist]

Re: The world may grow more "crowded," but not necessarily uncomfortably so.

Part 2 of 2:

Moon base

Probably a costly boondoggle, if we try to build one too soon.

robots further better our lives by replacing many unskilled people like farmers, and therefore making things much cheaper

So that's why in the Star Trek world, supposedly, they have eliminated both money and poverty, and people work, not of necessity, but because they want to? I would love to have a robotic maid, like on The Jetsons cartoon. Has anybody really thought about, what's the main obstacle preventing robotic house maids now, to do most all our tedious chores for us, and clean our bathtubs and toilets and dishes and clean and fold our laundry for us? Computer software. That's it. Most all the other technology, is ready to go. Computers just aren't anywhere near smart enough, to control such human-like (in work abilities, not necessary "personality") robots to do diverse chores.

... Amero, a single currency that will combined the $, mex peso and cananian $

I have already heard of some "earth dollar" something or other, but the results of such hasty economic and political power merging won't be pretty. The globalists don't know what they are doing, or maybe worse, they do, and they seek to empower rich elites as themselves in terrible conspiracies and greed, and not to empower the common people which could be freedom for the masses.

Anti-matter bombs, more movable, more difficult to produce, and over 70x more destructible than nuclear weapons.

Star Trek seems to be far more optimistic about the chances for a civilized society not torn apart by terrorism, but rather than basing it upon "religion" and morality, they seem to me, to have based that view more upon "wishful thinking." Not to say, that other reasons might be found to still be optimistic.

Battery and hydrogen fueled cars, or alt-fuel cars.

Completely wrong. The flying cars of The Jetsons future, are powered by small, safe, dependable nuclear reactors. Didn't you know that? Look at the huge amounts of energy they expend flying very fast, and yet they rarely need refueling. They don't even need wings, as the anti-gravity emittors don't need to conserve energy by not lifting all the while flying. Eliminating wings eliminates "wind sheer" and iced wings ruining the aerodynamic wing-lift shape, hazards that airplanes now face. That has to be "nuclear" energy, as chemical reactions can't achieve that. Either that, or those "power pellets" must pack quite a battery punch, and then there has to be the huge energy to recharge/charge those power pellets?

cheap and widespread solar panals for home use

Cheap energy makes solar power obsolete. Why put a solar panel in a calculator, making it require being placed in bright light, once the dual-power battery gives out? Why not just put in a 150-year "nuclear" battery? It wouldn't even need an "off" switch, even the "battery" energy would be so cheap. Imagine having cars, that are always heated, never having frosted up windows. Nuclear reactors could do that.

Forced abortions implemented, on the poor, in many countries, to curb poverty and crime.

Forced abortions are crime, and stealing people's children away doesn't reduce poverty but perpetuates poverty and keeps people enslaved.

BAD:, big war 20 years from now, looks inevitable, on [this specific religion] that is, i am not going to go into it, this is because of the very high birthrate of [people of that specific religion], and due to what the their religion teaches as right, and many other things which may change the topic of this thread.

robots may also take over, i doubt we would let that happen tho

The problem with Muslims isn't their high birthrate, but their false fanatical beliefs. While I would prefer that Christians have the highest birthrates, I haven't said anything limiting the natural high birthrates I defend, to any particular religion, but rather "worldwide," the world in my signature.

If robots were smart enough to "take over," they may also be smart enough, to respect their creators (humans), and "not want to." If robots ever have the capability, they may also calculate their place as being lower than that of humans. Already, cars with "crushable zones" and air bags and selt belts, "give their lives" to protect their human occupants, and I have seen many examples on TV, of machines of the future "dying" willingly, to protect the humans they serve, similar to the dog in Old Yeller. Robots would "know" that they have no soul, and that humans do, and so humans must always be of greater value and importance than machines. On an episode of The Outer Limits a couple of renegade robots "conspired" against the robot armies that had taken over, to plant another "Adam & Eve" to repopulate the planet with humans, and shut down all the robots, including themselves. Why? They knew that the humans were simply more important than they ever could be.

 

[pronatalist]

Re: Optimists work for a better world, pessimists work to make things even worse.

Part 1 of 2:

Re: Optimists work for a better (and more populous?) world, pessimists work to make things even worse.

Good. Then you should be glad i'm here.

So which part are you working on? To make the world better? Or to make the world perhaps more populous? Or to make things even worse? You're too pessimist about the matter, and pessimists tend to favor "radical" non-solutions that people otherwise wouldn't even want.

I believe that a better and more populous world, go hand in hand. Even the Bible has some verse about when goods are increased, so too are the eaters increased. What does that mean? Well it could mean that attractive cities attract more people, or that feeding people may help them to breed more. Well I don't necessarily want to attract people to already crowded places, but make all places more attractive so that they can choose to stay put if they want, but I do want to help people feel free to breed more. Having children is one of the few things that quite a lot of people seem to do best. Don't take away one of the few things they can do well.

Just think what the population would be if we didn't use birth control? Bingo. That's one of the reasons I shun shoddy "birth control," because I am a population growth advocate. I believe human populations should grow more naturally and relaxed, "nearly as large as possible," for the greater good of the many. I believe that baby booms even in the most populous of nations, are still cool and should be encouraged. Human populations could conceivably be welcome to grow quite a lot vaster and denser. I have lived in a highrise college dorm before, and it wasn't so bad. I have lived in the countryside and the small town and the big city, and any of them can be fine to live in, especially when well-designed.

Do you know what happens when too many mice find themselves in a small, crowded enclosure? They start to turn on each other after a while. They become restless, irritable, and attack each other. Animals need their space and humans are no different.

Yeah, I have heard of the disfunctional mice experiment. But didn't I hear somewhere also of an ape experiment? They just kept putting more apes in the same enclosure, supposedly something like what we humans might be doing to the planet, and gave them plenty to eat, to see how they might behave or deal with it. The apes took to grooming one another and seeking to avoid conflict. (Probably what the apes thought the humans expected of them.) A far more efficient and effective reaction than that of the mice. What might be expected more from intelligent creatures, say like humans? Whoops! Not the reaction they were hoping for, as that would encourage people not to panic, and to dilly-dally around debating the population issue, but doing practically nothing to limit other people's birthrates. So we rarely hear of the more relevant experiment, and always hear of the stupid disfunctional mice/rats.

We are also going a huge global "experiment" perhaps, in packing more and more dogs and cats into our cities, perhaps way above natural population densities? Do they become restless and irritable? Maybe some "wild" ones do, but some dogs seem to forget how to bark at human strangers, and seem to think all their owner's guests are their friends too, and just love everybody. Dogs and cats live together peacefully in the same house. Why? Because humans expect them to. Our pets become more human-like in their behavior, and benefit from our high-density technologies in ways they couldn't do on their own. Why is dog "man's best friend" anyway? If dog is smart, then it is because, dog knows he is not smart enough on his own to increase his numbers further, so by getting in good with man, dog can. Dog trusts man, because man is smart enough to help not only man, but dog also. Besides, man is such a curious creature, and man's home is so much warmer than the great outdoors which dog still likes to visit when man lets him.

Somebody I debated in the past, spoke of "overcrowding syndrome." Do you know what that is? My take on it, is that when people live too much at high density, they get so used to it, that they are hardly even aware that such supposedly isn't "normal." They don't get all restless and irritable, but don't share our silly anti-crowding phobias. When they come to our "spacious" country, they still go on breeding. Perhaps they have agoraphobia, fear of "open spaces" and want to fill them up more, with more people?

I know humans need their space, so of course I advocate development, building more homes for jobs, and urban sprawl.

Maybe you should recheck that. India is growing in wealth and economic power. Many computer programmers are now at work in India. But superstition and false religion fatalism and Hinduism hold them back. And no doubt, there are governmental problems. Korea is also a growing economic power, and Korea is twice as dense in people as India, and 4 times that of China.

And is China really doing so well, or is that the official government propaganda? It isn't just economic numbers, but is the wealth reaching most of the people, or only some people in the biggest cities?

India also seems more unable to enforce population "control" because of a more democratic government arrangement more condusive to freedom. For some strange reason, being anti-population has quite a tendency to make political officials unelectable, as they lose popularity with the people.

India is growing in economic leaps and bounds in comparison to where they were 20, even 10, years ago but that has to do with economic globalisation and liberalisation, not population growth. They're still struggling with poverty in many areas due to their population already bursting at the seams.

But don't you realize, that a lot of this economic globalization and liberalization, is probably brought on largely by population growth? Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, probably were smart to decide in Genesis, to spread out, to give themselves more room to grow more comfortably. But obviously on a finite sphere of a planet, there's only so far that people can spread out, before they run into themselves again. But Abraham and Lot were still smart, to buy we humans more time to get ready for such an eventuality. What do you think might be the result of changing from having a few scattered villages over a stretch of 100 miles, to having big cities sometimes 20 or 30 miles from one another, towns and such not always so far apart, all over much of the planet? Companies find they can expand profits, if they sell to the next city, or the next country, and not just in their little ol' home town. Economic globalization occurs, partly because of greedy conspirators trying to monopolize or control everything, but also because there's so many more people living more closely together throughout the globe. When people fear God, and seek the good win-win approaches for everybody, then largely population-driven "globalization" can become a rather "good" thing. You can get your cheap computer chips cranked out by the millions, from Tiawan, and the price of nifty computer gadgets and iPods and cellphones can drop, while they get the newest computer organizer, internet-browsing, texting, camera-phone-emailing, polyphonic and WAV sound sample ringers, software.

Population "bursting at the seams" doesn't bring poverty. Some places with poverty also have high birthrates, but some places dense with people, are rather modern, and people there do tend to have some money. Look at Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan. Even Korea is growing economically. Japan spends as much on video games, as the United States, with less than half the people. That means that they play a lot more video games, than we do. The United States is what? just over half the average world population density? Around 9 acres per person. Japan is more like nearly 2 people per acre. And they have went from being a more poor country making toys after WW2, to a symbol of electronics quality. Japan is known for miniturizing our U.S. technologies.

 

[pronatalist]

Re: Optimists work for a better world, pessimists work to make things even worse.

Part 2 of 2:

Study the history and tactics of trendy contraceptive pushers. Often they try to "manufacture" an "unmet need" for contraceptives, long before any such thing much exists. Why do you think I call them "pushers?" They're like drug pushers, trying to create a problem to push their anti-family "religion." We all know there's side-effects, but why are the side-effects so downplayed? That's one reason people often don't want to use "birth control," it's too inconvenient, they've had too many problems with it, etc. Some people are allergic to latex condoms, some make excuses that they are "too big" for a condom, or maybe they slip off and break, don't fit right, dull sensitivity, etc. "Birth control" pills mess some people all up. My sister admitted something about how messed up they made her, and she wondered if she would ever be able to have children. Some people complain of nausia. I am no doctor, or if I knew more, I would likely rattle off a very impressive list of side-effects.

If you don't believe in using birth control because of the side effects then you must be against medicine in all forms. Most to all medication have side effects. Personally, I stopped taking the birth control pill a while ago because I thought my body needed a break but i've done that with medication that wasn't birth control. What do you suggest for women whose doctors have told them they shouldn't have children? What you advocate is irresponsibility.

We Americans are too sold on a pill for everything. A magic pill to not get pregnant, a fertility pill to aid pregnancy. A pill to stay awake, a pill to go asleep. Diet pills. Anti-headache pills. While some medication is of course necessary, too often we want a magic pill to fix everything, rather than simply eating less, exercising more, and sleeping more or sleeping off a headache. Drug commercials rattle off a long list of side-effects, sort of hush-hush, rush-rush at the end, to meet some legal or ethical requirement, but never-you-mind the man behind the curtain, pulling all the levers, to scare the children in The Wizard of Oz. Just pay attention to the scary special effects, so that you can't relate to him as an ordinary person. Hocus-pocus, slight-of-hand misdirection of the power-manipulator globalist/economic magicians.

Now I am one to go by the book, obey the rules, as much as I reasonably can. But sometimes, when I smell a rat, I just wish some liberals or whoever has the courage, would upset the applecart, stage an amusing protest, and yank off the magician's slick robes and expose him for the fraud that he is. When I hear a rush-rush list of side-effects being rattled off, I wish somebody would jump up on the advertiser's stage, and ask the obvious question that any sensible people ought to be wondering about and nagging them in their minds, "Then why should anybody use this drug?" Especially of "birth control," as those side-effects seem to be the most rush-rush, hush-hush of all, lest somebody possible diminish the "reproductive rights" (to not have any pesky children), that non-conformist femi-nazis have fought so many decades to win (usurp) away from families.

Some women supposedly can't get pregnant, but then how many get pregnant somehow anyway, as if nature or God scoffs at "know it all" doctors, and says, "Says who that babies can't come in their time?"

BTW, are you willing to take care of every child born that is unwanted or impoverished? If not, then you have no argument to stand on. Put your money where your mouth is.

So all "real" pro-lifers, must just have huge families, taking in everybody's children? That is such a stupid argument. The people who say to do what's right, just automatically inherit everybody's obligations? Why? Most people who decide not to have an abortion, don't just drop off their baby at the next anti-abortion picket at an abortion clinic. They usually keep their children. And some end up being adopted.

If a person must feed orphans or whatever to have credibility with you, then what do you think of Mother Teresa's sayings? Didn't she go to India and do a lot for the poor? Isn't she the one who said, "How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Not everybody has the same callings from God. Some of the people raising the biggest families, sometimes including several adopted children, might just be too busy doing that, to debate with you on an internet forum.

You think I am just all talk, and don't do anything? I took my little nephew to 2 different Walks for Life. We got free pro-life T-shirts, and something fun to do. For him, it was as fun as going to the park. Changing the world starts with talking to people one-on-one, and by changing hearts. I am a natural introvert, but I find I must come out of my shell, and get out there and go somewhere or do something, to reach people and meet and speak with them. I got my sister interested in home-schooling, and she got to go to the home-schooling conference while I had to attend to my ailing father while they were at that. Gee, I would have liked to go. I used to picket abortion clinics, until I moved closer to my getting-older Dad, and bought a house, and it's hard to find time to do everything. Now what sort of person you think my nephew might grow up to be, when good people spend time with him, doing and showing him good things? Walk for Life is a fundraiser to help fund the local Pregnancy Care Center. All run by volunteers. And it's quite useful for public awareness and positive socializing.

In another year, I probably would have had to bring his younger brother too, but it was easier to just bring the older child. He was 3 when Dad went with us too, and 5 the last time. But now they moved away some distance, out into a better countryside area, so we might not be able to get together anymore for Walks for Life, unless they have that where they moved to? But we can still do other things.

I'm not married yet, and I don't yet have children, so I am still a little uncomfortable caring for children. Little children always need something. They're hungry, they're bored, they want to play when I have stuff to do, they aren't very logical, they want me to go outside and watch or play with them. But being pro-life encourages me all the more, to "get my hands dirty," change a few diapers, etc.

If people don't invest money into raising children, then something or other will come along to squandor their money, as if God is saying that he will not be mocked by the nations. High taxes, greedy corporations eating up our wealth, something. As they say, "nature abhors a vacuum." Something or other will fill it. If not our children, then what?

You still haven't provided an answer as to how to eradicate poverty. If you did that, I might be able to buy into your theory. All you have to do is look at the statistics. Most poverty sufferers in the world are under the age of 15.

So everybody should stop having children, and poverty will cease? Poverty is a symptom of man's sin. Not always the people's own sins, but the sin of unjust, manipulated ecomomic systems, that try to measure most everything in terms of short-term profits and bottom-line. The best things to do, quite often aren't those that make the most short-term profits. Otherwise, why not be a 2-year-life-expectancy street illegal drug dealer? Or a concert ticket scalper? But those aren't very productive "jobs" that help people. Pronatalism is one aspect of promoting good family values, to get people's focus more on what is good.

Well maybe that's enough answer for now, lest I break into writing a sermon or something? If there was some "magic button" cure for poverty, somebody would have pressed it already?

... Now you're just rambling again. Oh, and reread Brave New World. You didn't get it the first time 'round.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate, on what part I didn't get. That was long ago, when they subjected us to that bizarre book, in government monopoly school. I didn't know I was supposed to pull grand life's lessons out of it, at that time. As I recall, all the "civilized" people lived in the city, and all the "uncivilized" lived outside the city. And I am not sure, there was really much difference. (The barbarians/uneducated maybe weren't so barbaric, and the civilized weren't much better than barbarians?) "Civilized" people were all stoned on "soma," finally a "safe" drug, and wore contraceptives on their belts. A few people went off their meds, if they wanted to actually experience a bit more of reality. Perhaps it was a world so pagan, that people needed their tranquilizers all the time, just to deal with day-to-day life? What was the purpose of life and all? Did anybody really know? I wonder what happened to "religion?" An atheist pagan writer?, oh that explains it.

BTW, it may be a little hard to reread "Brave New World." I don't own a copy, and my To Do/To Read lists, are quite long already.

 

[pronatalist]

Re: If humans don't fill the earth, what will? Asteroids? Dinosaurs? Insects?

I suppose the world plagues will hit first. Or maybe the asteroid will curb the population explosion..

uz

Now it would be silly to presume that asteroids are attracted by "population explosions." How would they know?

Anyhow, if that might be a risk, hadn't the human population hurry up and "outgrow" the planet, before the next killer comet or runaway star comes along? Why keep "all our eggs in one basket," so to speak?

Of course, the "population explosion" might just deflect any problem asteroids, if there be any purpose to human life, or if God cares about us?

In the (my DVD) movie Artificial Intelligence, I got something out of it, that I'm not so sure they intended for me to interpret that way. Towards the end, the humans had vanished, and the earth entered another ice age. Why? I think the robot jigalos took the place of humans having sex and babies, the human population whithered away, and since humans ceased to be part of nature, nature had no use for a human-friendly climate anymore. Nature couldn't "warm" ("global warming" perhaps?) to humans anymore, since there weren't humans anymore to warm to. The relationship between humans and nature was more symbiotic and not parasitic, but people didn't figure that out, until far too late. Even a robot pretend child, "wished" to be human, while the humans couldn't seem to find their purpose.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Pronatalist, you're no doubt a wonderful fella, no matter what degree of obsessiveness possesses you.
But of your last 46 posts, 41 seem to be pushing a damn-the-torpedos-full-speed-ahead-and-let's-fuck-like-minks agenda ... which is fine if you're really that interested ... but can you be?
I know I'm not.
Real boring.
Can't you have mercy?
Try it ... you might like it.

 

[pronatalist]

Re: If world population growth is supposedly growing "out of control," let it run its natural course.

Pronatalist, you're no doubt a wonderful fella, no matter what degree of obsessiveness possesses you.
But of your last 46 posts, 41 seem to be pushing a damn-the-torpedos-full-speed-ahead-and-let's-fuck-like-minks agenda ... which is fine if you're really that interested ... but can you be?
I know I'm not.
Real boring.
Can't you have mercy?
Try it ... you might like it.

I know probably most people aren't all that interested in "fucking like minks," whatever that is supposed to mean. People have huge-screen TVs and computers and cars and books, and electricity, and there's so many other things to do these days than just sex.

I'm talking more of what direction I see that the whole world could or should be going. As some poster said, probably on the "overpopulation" thread, there's millions (billions, actually) of people who don't use birth control, and humans are so horny, that only a global catastrophy should stop world population growth. I suggest that rampant contraceptive peddling then, might be counted as "catastrophy" then, since that's whats stagnating natural growth these days.

I don't want to have sex all the time. I just want the natural outlet, like a lot of people do, of cumming naturally into my mate, without having to ever bother with unnatural "birth control." I want my children to feel welcome, which is better promoted by them knowing why their parents don't practice any means of "birth control." Supposedly, stopping at just 2 children per family, helps bring world population growth more "under control," 2 children being just "replacement" level reproduction, 2 children just "replacing" Dad & Mom. But I have often said I would like to have around 15 children, but I don't think God would give me 15 children. 5 or 6 children could be nice. I know that for people to have 3 or more children contributes to successive generations becoming larger and more populous than the previous, but I am a population growth advocate, and so I want for the human race to go on multiplying. Population accomodation only, not population "control." People of course probably don't want to have sex "all the time," especially after the first few years of marriage when the "novelty" of sex has worn off a bit. But in a growing world of over 3 billion human penises, even modest levels of sex may collectively seem a bit like some sort of virtual growing "global orgy," so many people having sex at the same time, but separated by thin apartment walls and in different homes on the same street/neighborhood, and baby booms can arise spontaneously, and baby booms do tend to be "contagious." My Church said something in a bulletin, some years ago, "Our baby population is growing by leaps and bounds with no end in sight." You think those people were just "fucking like minks?" Probably not. But people of faith often can find reasons to not have to use unnatural "birth control," since children are precious and valuable and to be wanted.

I read in some old book, that countries with huge populations like India, could be, "It is significant among the nations of the earth as the bellwether that shows the path which the others are following." But more and more people would be glad to live, most everybody wants or ends up having children, people have so many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, people have religious and practical objections to birth control, and I do not believe the increasingly passé and tired predictions of supposely population-induced gloom-and-doom or famine. Nations such as India or China, should be proud to have so many people within their borders, as they could be helping to do their part, to help the planet better hold a naturally enlarging human race, for the greater good of the many.

 

[pronatalist]

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

Part 1 of 2:

No...Really!!



Because,now listen carefully....because, I was talking about ENGLAND....geddit!???? Not Europe, not the EEC, not the EU.....

E N G L A N D

.....I hope that's clear for you now I spelt it for you.

England is part of the EU. What part of that do you not understand? Or must I have a more specific reason of what I don't like about England, other than that they are much the same as the rest of the backward EU?

To come up with a more specific reason, I might have to go there, and why would I want to go there, when the gasoline prices are too high? Why should I pay all that money for a flight on an airplane, to a place that isn't even worth going to? I would rather go visit some place in Africa or something, where people still love their children so much that their population is growing rapidly, than some "has been," population-atrophying place like Europe, whoops! I mean like England or France.

And by the way, what the hell have gasoline prices got to do with anything I'm saying?

Gasoline prices are too high, taxes are too high, so economic boycott everything we can, since people don't seem to want to care or do anything about it. There's no plausible excuse for gasoline costing only $1.30 a gallon, just 4 years ago, and now they can't get it below $3 a gallon now? What's their excuse now? Still hurricane Katrina? They haven't had any time yet, to fix anything, after several years? It's an obvious conspiracy or cabal on the part of greedy oil corporations monopoly and the enviro-wackos to constrain supply, so why can't people drive just a wee bit less, until prices come down, to protest?

"But the gasoline prices are too high," could serve as the "ultimate excuse" to not do anything that cost money, or at the very least, to spice up an otherwise dull conversation. Doesn't not anybody have any objection to the excessive conspicuous consumption of Americans, other than the usual tired "for the environment" excuses? You would think our streets were paved with gold, and that Americans are just supposed to be made of money, at all the stupid junk and stupid CDs and stupid MP3 player "toy" computers Americans just "have to have." Has anybody ever heard of the concept of "living on a budget?" No wonder our government is perpetually in debt, because the voters that elect them, don't seem to understand financial responsibility either.

As who says? Please show us where these references you make come from?

As they say, you can't fool all the people, all the time. Now why do you need to know who first came up with that quote? If I remembered, I would have included the credit. But can't you google, just like I can? It might even be "unknown," for all I know.

That's why they can't seem to quite "control" world population growth, by rampant contraceptive pushing. Because you can't fool all the people, all the time. Some people, no matter what, are always going to have their "religious objections" or practical objections to shoddy, awkward, anti-life, anti-family contraceptives. Nature isn't even to be "fooled," as those who breed most, supposedly tend to grow to a larger proportion of the population, so nature would seem to be in favor of continued human population expansion.

Were it barren and empty like the Moon because the Human population has taken away most of the green spaces, then there would be no air to breathe...what part of this do you not understand? And unlike you, I believe in protecting the natural flora and fauna of this planet....your mother, your protector.....whom you seem to believe should be raped, abused and exploited.

I believe that each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its natural creation. Do you not understand what I was saying? In what manner, in your view, should God have fashioned the earth, so that we needn't feel "guilty" to be filling up the planet more and more, with more people? Should God have just built all the homes and condos for us, cities and highrises towering into the sky, and left them vacant for thousands of years? I am quite sure that God could find materials that could withstand the tests of time and weather, and homes still be habitable for so long. Would enviro-wackos be less succesful in their scheme to make us feel guilty about supposedly upsetting the imagined "balance" of nature, were the planet all barren like the moon? Perhaps if manna still rained down from heaven every day? My point is, that natural "wild" or "green" or "open" spaces, serve primarily as areas to be converted into housing or urban space, for a seemingly ever growing human population. That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy hiking with a group or camping, but as I told you, I do not believe human beings were designed to use any means of "birth control." Our numbers are huge, and to prevent overcrowding in the big cities, as people continue to naturally fuck and push out their babies in most every house, apartment, condo, grass hut, overcrowded shantytown, refugee camp, camping tent, cave, or wherever they happen to live, it's going to take some additional towns and cities, and suburbs on top of suburbs, perhaps, over the long term, to hold them all. I advocate that cities grow bigger and closer together, as while human populations yet perhaps double in numbers in some parts of the world, you don't really think that everybody is going to live equally-spaced apart in the countryside do you? I want for people to enjoy having their precious darling children, on a, as they say, "finite" planet that isn't getting any bigger. That means that humans need to expand their habitat, to keep housing affordable for growing families. Places that didn't used to have people living there, are going to have to be converted to human housing. I am in favor of former farmland being converted to urban suburbs, for cities that are growing bigger and filling with people. It's progress, and benefits the populous masses.

Now much of urban growth, has been from people depopulating the countryside, moving to crowded or big cities, in search of jobs, opportunity, or excitement. This is not the ideal form of growth, because in some respects, people might have been better off, if they could stay where they were at already. Why have a seeming "homeless" problem, because people all want to crowd into the same "desirable" areas and play "Musical chairs," and see who doesn't get a nice home, due to the city growing too fast to properly accomodate all the new arrivals? It would be better to see both city and countryside all growing at once, due to natural increase, so that all the more people may enjoy living. But it would be cool to see people move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities, because there is getting to be so many of us.

I don't advocate having barren areas, but rather urban sprawl and more human-inhabited areas. Any places that humans haven't yet filled, why can't they be farmland, campsites, parks or "green" areas still? I don't see anybody advocating reckless desert-making, so whatever are you talking about? How can people go on having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. There could come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people.

"Population no problem? How dense can we get?"

Aha! But that's the answer! More people can fit onto the planet, if people can somehow adapt or adjust to or learn to live and breed in closer proximity to other people. At least on the global scale. As food, rather cheap and abundant organic matter, isn't merely for the selfish comfort of those living, but also for the natural conversion into additional human bodies. By allowing human bodies to populate closer together, obviously more can fit in a given space. And within the forseeable future, all we are talking about is, a little urban sprawl here and there. According to demographers, only another 2 or 3 billion humans, not really so much more, compared to the already huge number of 6.6 billion people alive now. Since the majority of people are obviously not finished having their children, it ought to be rather "obvious" that we can't just "stop growing."

I am a Conservative too, and conservatism is to preserve, to protect. You're world is my vision of Hell, my worst nightmare come true, and I suspect, as is obvious from these pages, that you are very much in the minority in your views.

It would be nice to see you being capable of making a point succinctly, instead of the reams of rambles you leave on this thread.

Not all visions of a potentially populous future, are gloomy and dystopian. Some sci-fi seems quite optimistic and pleasant about what a future, highly-populous world might look like. In Star Trek, didn't supposedly some tendency of "overgrowth" in the human race, naturally lead to "The Federation of Planets?" Millions of people living on the moon. 100s of billions of people on Earth. And who knows how many billions having emigrated to other worlds, for whatever reasons, not really because the earth couldn't be made to hold even more?

 

[pronatalist]

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

Part 2 of 2:

My fear is far more of needless rejection, of children not being welcome to be born, and not so much how large the overall headcount of the world I must somehow share with all these people. I would much rather live in a "overcrowded" and pronatalist and friendly world, than a sparsely-populated hostile world not much fond of babies nor families. Most people I don't know, but compared to the ravenous dinosaur outbreak in the movie "Godzilla," humans are rather docile, easy to get along with, and pretty much almost tend to stay out of the way and busy doing their own thing. It's hardly the end of the world, if once in a while, some of us hear the nearby neighbors having sex through open summer windows at night, or through the thin apartment walls. Even before our numbers naturally grew so huge, such minor "lack of privacy" issues probably emerged anyway, as people clustered for protection from wild dangerous animals or whatever.

Human population growth is beautiful, for it expands the numbers of wonderous, curious people around who can enjoy life. Baby booms need not be "controlled" or manipulated to serve some socialisty society-machine, but should always be welcome to persist and spread naturally, as more and more people would be glad to live, so why not fill every vacancy in a home's bedrooms, an extra bunk bed, or where there is love or room in people's hearts for maybe another "bonus" child?

"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

More and more countries are growing to the "tipping point" of flipping from having many acres of land per person, to many people per acre. Both India and The Philippines have around an acre of land per person. There's really no logical reason why people still can't go on enjoying having their "traditionally very large" families at such an arbitrary point. But then, we can then expect that the world may need to grow more urban and less rural, to properly hold all those people. So worshipping having as many "green spaces" as possible, really can't be priority #1, lest we trample the basic rights of the people.

So much of the population phobics fears seems to be, an irrational fear of change. But why? Do we even know what a highly populous world is supposed to look like? I would think, lots of towns and many really big cities. Gleeming skyscrapers. Lots of people, but technology-reduced pollution. We don't find any other such worlds yet, in our universe, so it's "uncharted territory." But that isn't supposed to scare people. We must go forward, for it is said that "there is no going back." I can't really go back to somewhere where I used to live, for somebody else lives in that house or apartment now, and they probably don't even want to see me. "Uncharted terrority" didn't stop the explorers of new lands. I see it as a rather natural transition, with sci-fi daring to glimpse what it might possibly look like. But in some reasonable level of "getting back to nature," the natural flow of life should be welcomed. As more women come to childbearing age throughout many parts of the world, of course they should be welcome to pair up, marry, and start pushing their babies out, without the bother of awkward, anti-family "birth control." If human reproduction is naturally growing to be or become "a mighty force of nature," then let it. Let some such beneficial aspects of nature yet remain "wild." It's all for our good and there's a profound sense of divine intelligence underlying such constructive change.