Predicting the Next 100 Years

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
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.

Does that mean you're offering to babysit when my partner and I need a night out from our 23.5 children?
 

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
eddyabs said:
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 .

Well many people don't want to imagine working against nature, trying to prevent possible pregnancies, and profaning the sacred purpose of sex, in naturally enlarging the overall human population.

I have no objection to living in a world of 15 billion or more, growing by half a billion a year. That's just 3.3% annual growth, a rather reasonable growth rate allowing for many naturally large families, for a world where many people should feel free not to use any means of anti-life, awkward "birth control" at all. Let the flow of human life flow naturally, without buying into the lies of the population "control" business of the globalist control freaks. I welcome burgeoning world population, as a complicating "monkeywrench" or thorn in their sides, delaying their tyranical adenda at consodating world political power in the hands of the corrupt few, to usher in the Anti-Christ.

Already during my lifetime, world population has doubled in size, and I see no adverse effects that can truly be said to be caused by it, and a lot of positive changes probably pushed forward by our enlarging numbers. It would be similar with 15 billion people. Either 6.6 or 15 billion are incredibly huge numbers, but not that much different really, except that welcoming further growth, people may go on having their precious darling babies.
 

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: A more pronatalist world, can solve problems such as "needing babysitting."

Pronatalist said:
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.

Does that mean you're offering to babysit when my partner and I need a night out from our 23.5 children?

Probably not, since you probably live too far away. More likely, I may offer to babysit for the 24 children of one of my own children, as of course, I would train my children not to use nasty anti-life "birth control" either.

There is a school of thought, that maybe, just maybe, nature doesn't always need our "help" to be more "natural." If human populations grow something like "out of control" forest fires, well nature didn't need our "help" before to manage them, did it? Often it's easier to "do nothing," than to "do something." Out in unpopulated inaccessible wilderness, it's generally more cost-effective to let natural wildfires naturally burn themselves out, without all that much if any, human intervention. Similarly, a world that doesn't push "family planning," tends to be simpler, kinder, more beautiful, and more natural, at least in the ways most beneficial to humans. Author Mary Pride claims that in countries where "birth control" is seldom used, family size of 5 or 6 children is typical. Even if a family did manage to have 20 children, which is quite unlikely, it would generally take a good long time, and the older children would help with the younger children. Actually, somebody on my forum, commented on how children used to mature into adults, responsibility, emotionally or however, at younger ages than they do today, due to the larger families of the past. They already have a pretty good idea how to parent, when having been surrounded by and helping with multiple siblings. That's a "modern" disfunction brought on by contraceptives. Grown up people, who still think that life's a big party, and that the world exists to entertain them, so immature for their age.

If you do manage to have so many children, wouldn't you know other large families, with whom you could trade babysitting with?
 

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: Now that the "shock value" of "overpopulation" dogma is wearing off, what now?

Pronatalist said:
Either 6.6 or 15 billion are incredibly huge numbers, but not that much different really.

Please, pronatalist ... take your meds.

So should I take it, that you agree with me here?

I notice that you offered up, absolutely no reasons or examples of why 15 billion should be considered all that much noticably "more" people, than the "huge" number of 6 billion.

Either way, you can't remember everybody's names anyway.

I would want for my children to feel free to enjoy having their possibly "traditionally very large" families, in a world pushing 9 or 10 billion, or my children or grandchildren feel free to have their precious darling children, in a world of 12 or 15 billion or more. And likewise for everybody else's children. I am quite willing to "scoot over" a bit, so that all the more fellow humans can somehow fit on the planet, if people will simply do the same, for my possibly many children. As I have said, I do not believe in human population "control," because such supposedly intelligent and curious creatures as humans need not be bound by such bizarre and external controls, but ought to be capable of self-control and personal responsibility. If people really do prefer to have so many children and raise them, then it's a simpler matter of how to fit so many onto a single world. Have you people no faith nor vision nor imagination? What's the use of dreaming so pidly small?
 

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: Most humans are breeders, not people-hating population-phobes.

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

That's an unfair stereotypical opinion. For have you forgotten to consider, that before the rebellious "Free Love," 1960s counterculture of promiscuity, at the advent of "the pill," pretty much the entire human race was "breeding like rabbits?" Longer life expectancy and increasingly most babies growing up to adulthood to have still more children, supposedly was sending the numbers soaring, according to the population alarmists.

Ever hear of the "Moral Majority?"

So we breeders are neither "small," nor "dangerous," nor a "minority," but most of the entire human race, still is having babies. So I figure, hopefully, one way or another, we shall have to deal with "population," in a manner more accomodating and not unnaturally "limiting" of already huge numbers. The human race is populous. It's our basic nature and design to be populous. So our natural increase, should still be considered a "given" to design around, not something of socialistic "control" and manipulation for evil and poorly-imagined tyranical ends.
 

pronatalist

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Posts
916
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I hope someone doesn't think that Sim City is a 100% accurate emulation of real life. :rolleyes:

Gee, that was something I wanted to get around to pointing out, eventually.

Too many unproven, preconceived notions, of a single author(s), in a mere computer simulation.

Video games are rather unrealistic anyway, no matter how "realistic" the graphics are. Think about it. How many times in real life, do you just "happen" to the the star of the show, the hero who just "happens" to save, well pretty much the whole world? Video games are about entertainment, not so much about reality. Actually, an escape from reality.

But I do think that video games tend to be underrated. They can be quite a lot more "educational" than a lot of people think. Lots of clever, interesting puzzles in the best video games.
 

No_Strings

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Posts
3,967
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
283
Location
Dubai (United Arab Emirates)
Gee, that was something I wanted to get around to pointing out, eventually.

Too many unproven, preconceived notions, of a single author(s), in a mere computer simulation.

Video games are rather unrealistic anyway, no matter how "realistic" the graphics are. Think about it. How many times in real life, do you just "happen" to the the star of the show, the hero who just "happens" to save, well pretty much the whole world? Video games are about entertainment, not so much about reality. Actually, an escape from reality.

But I do think that video games tend to be underrated. They can be quite a lot more "educational" than a lot of people think. Lots of clever, interesting puzzles in the best video games.

How many times do you just "happen" to miss the point of a post and then elaborate on an almost unrelated and largely irrelevant tangent?

Around eight pages worth, perchance?
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
How many times do you just "happen" to miss the point of a post and then elaborate on an almost unrelated and largely irrelevant tangent?

Around eight pages worth, perchance?

That's not even his best trick. The one that gets the most eye-rolls is his premise that people are having birth control forced on them. In fact, the opposite is the case - in countries where birth control has been banned, the population (the female population, in particular) has lobbied for its legalization.

Having said that, we can all patiently await pronatalist's incoherent 700-word response. :rolleyes: His response will, like his other posts, be devoid of references, science, or anything else that might give the impression that he has the slightest grasp of reality.
 

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: My "incoherent 700 word response."

That's not even his best trick. The one that gets the most eye-rolls is his premise that people are having birth control forced on them. In fact, the opposite is the case - in countries where birth control has been banned, the population (the female population, in particular) has lobbied for its legalization.

Having said that, we can all patiently await pronatalist's incoherent 700-word response. :rolleyes: His response will, like his other posts, be devoid of references, science, or anything else that might give the impression that he has the slightest grasp of reality.

Oh, so that explains why I read of condoms being wasted, to waterproof roofs, being given to children to play with as balloons, and of the huge disgrace of "medical clinics" with more contraceptives than they know what to do with, but shortaged of basic supplies like clean needles.

Thanks for explaining it to me. Now it's so clear. Women are so busy lobbying for "birth control" that they conveniently forget to, or don't bother to use it? Or maybe you have been reading some anti-human "family planning" propaganda somewhere?
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Re: My "incoherent 700 word response."

Congratulations on attempting brevity.

You still need to work on your grasp of science, reason, and the concept of what a "reference" is, though.

Oh, so that explains why I read of condoms being wasted, to waterproof roofs, being given to children to play with as balloons, and of the huge disgrace of "medical clinics" with more contraceptives than they know what to do with, but shortaged of basic supplies like clean needles.

Bullshit. You've never read anything of the sort. Otherwise, you would have credible, reviewable references.

Thanks for explaining it to me. Now it's so clear.

Yes, it's perfectly clear. You're just choosing to close your eyes because reality conflicts with your warped view of the world.

Women are so busy lobbying for "birth control" that they conveniently forget to, or don't bother to use it? Or maybe you have been reading some anti-human "family planning" propaganda somewhere?

The only "propaganda" I'm reading is the garbage you're emitting. Once again, you're denying reality. Women are obviously using birth control - as you can see from the global birth rate decline over the last 50 years. Funny that you would forget that, considering it's the central fucking point of your entire delusional position.

(This is what is called a re-fer-ence. http://esa.un.org/unpp/p2k0data.asp)

And anti-human? That describes your position perfectly - your tirades against the "birth control conspiracy" are a clear indication that you'd be perfectly happy to prevent people from choosing smaller families. Yeah, that's real humanistic of you. :rolleyes:

You've made no attempt to support your position with anything but your own ranting. You're a threadjacker and a troll, and by your own admission, apparently have been for years. What's really pathetic is that you aren't even slightly credible, despite all that practice. :smile:
 

Pecker

Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Posts
54,502
Media
0
Likes
301
Points
283
By the year 2100, The Walmart-Starbucks Industrials (formerly Dow-Jones) will reach 250,000 on the NYSE. Of course, bread will cost $45 per loaf. Drew Carey will announce his retirement from The Price Is Right. Michael Jackson's son will playfully hold his father's cremation urn over the edge of a balcony and it will be shown ad nauseum on YouTube. Jason will balloon to 450 lbs. when SubWay is bought out by Pizza Hut.