Some of us who favor nature in human-beneficial ways, naturally oppose needless "earth control."
Part 1 of 2:
I'm sure somebody has tried this one on Pronatalist before - but I'm going to give it a shot - just because I think the response may be an interesting insight.
Pronatalist - are you aware that there has been a method of natural population control amongst human beings for millenia - it is called high* infant / child mortality.
And is that the way it is forever to be? We can't make proper natural improvements? Deut. 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. Surely that could imply using medical technology for "death control" but not "birth control." Favoring human life. Welcoming the
natural increase of the naturally-growing human race. The proper pro-life bias is even recorded in the traditional demographic terms. Having "issue" of children, as if God hands out or issues his blessings of children. "Natural increase," as in it's perfectly natural and to be expected.
Over human (recorded) history, and especially in the last 100-150 years, medical science has taken huge leaps and bounds. This has had a huge impact on infant mortality rates (in developed countries). Children who would have been lost during gestation, even 30 years ago, are now often saved. Children who would have been lost due to premature birth are now more often than not saved. Children who would have been lost due to extremely premature birth are now often saved. Children who would have died within the first year of life now often don't even get sick - same goes for children under the age of 5**.
And this is all good. Why should parents, or their children, suffer needlessly. We face a population "challenge" in that now most babies born, grow up to have still more babies. But then, humans need and thrive on challenges, and as challenges go, that's a rather "good" one to face.
I think this is wonderful - I wish it were the same the world over.
Even if that means the global population naturally rises more quickly? Of course you know my answer would be Yes. I don't at all support supposedly "natural" population "control" in the form of needless or preventable infant mortality.
That has no bearing, however, on the fact that one of the reasons humans evolved to be able to reproduce as we can (pretty much continually with breaks in fertility only during pregnancy and, for many, nursing) is down to the fact that not all offspring survive. In fact, even as recently as 1900 an infant mortality rate of 15 - 20 % was pretty much common globally (
one source). And I think we can safely say that the further back you go the higher that gets (to a point).
So, certainly in the developed world, human beings no longer need to have all the children we are able to and, in fact, further to that we would be ill advised to do so as it causes over-population - which in turn tends to bring about suffering. So in the (developed) world today we have the option of birth control. This means that instead of having babies and children dying (or the population rising uncontrolably, causing resource shortages, meaning worse living conditions for a greater number of people and therefore bringing us back to natural 'population control', i.e. child and infant mortality rising) we have the option of never conceiving these children in the first place, birth control***.
But quite many people don't believe in imposing population "control," nor that it should be, or is practically capable or moral to control. Still many people believe in not using any means of "birth control" also. I am pro-life, also pro-population. We should "go along with nature" especially in what so benefits so many people, allowing the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. Much of the world population, for moral, religious or practical beliefs, is fine with human population rising "uncontrollably." Even claimed atheists I find discussing the matter on the various forums, are for naturally large families, as seemingly being healthier cultural function, good for the "progress" of the human race, or something.
While humans enjoy being strangely constantly "in heat," able to breed offspring year-round, we are among the slowest at reproducing of God's creatures. But we also tend to naturally reproduce though, steadily and relentlessly. Isn't that a large part of why humans are supposed to be intelligent? To allow us to readily ADAPT to our naturally rising numbers.
There is nothing at all unnatural about population control - it happens in all species, ours included. We have found a way around the suffering and pain part of it. That is not a bad thing.
When I say I prefer the natural, that's only the human-beneficial natural. Teeth green with rot, could be said to be natural. I don't believe in polluting the body directly, with ugly tattooing inks, nasty cancer stick cigarettes, bizarre body piercings, hair coloring, or nasty shoddy contraceptives. With any married couples, reproductive semen naturally belongs within the reproductive tract, ready to maybe make a baby at any moment.
I do not believe in "earth control." I define "earth control" as trying to "control" nature to such an extent as to be detrimental to man. Don't bother, if cost-benefit analysis doesn't work. That means that most forest fires out in remote unpopulated inaccessible wilderness, likely aren't worth the effort to fight, as nature can handle them so much cheaper. I first saw the term, in the stupid "environmental" book I think, "50 Ways to Save the Earth." It dared to intrude in the taboo God-given right/duty of procreation, by suggesting that having no more than 2 children per family, supposedly helps "stabilize" (stagnate) world population size. But I find 2 children per family, a pidly small family size, far smaller than what is biologically likely, and far smaller than many families can be expected to want or be capable somehow of managing. Statistically, it takes an average of 3 children per couple, just to get both a boy and a girl. Isn't it wrong how boys are favored over girls in places like China? Shouldn't girls get to be born and live too? At least keep on having more girls until a family gets their boy(s).
Anyway, I do not believe in setting any arbitrary cap on world population size. Such is needless "earth control." Nature was meant to be altered by man for human benefit, but not to be subject to such excessive "control." Some aspects of nature should remain "wild," such as allowing some wildfires to grow naturally during droughts, as intervention often isn't worth the effort, and welcoming human baby booms to persist and spread. We aren't "god," so how to we imagine we can tame or "control" all of nature? Subdue and alter, Yes, but not "earth control." Humans are under no obligation to somehow keep our numbers "reasonably" small compared to the seeming small size of the appliable land. Humans are so highly adaptable, that our populations could be or become potentially very large compared to the size of the land. Even sci-fi proposes that population "arcologies," or vertical cities packing lots of people into limited space, could someday perhaps prove useful.
* that's high relative to now
** a significant milestone in development that child mortality statistians use as a cut off point, not me being arbitrary.
*** or ideally, for me anyway, conception control
Further reading: WHO | Health Status Statistics: Mortality
Population size is such a profound matter, that it can only be morally decided by a "higher power." For pets, their human masters will do, so we are free to get our pets "fixed" if we so choose, as we "own" them and "know what's best for them." Mere animals or pets do not have "human rights." Getting them fixed helps them be better pets without needless reproductive urge distractions. But humans have a simple method for this, that pretty much removes their desire for sex as well. It works. But obviously it's not applicable to humans, as we are much different, and we have human rights. We are created in God's image, so we are expected to have some measure of self-control and to take responsibility for our actions. Thus, we have the right, even the obligation, to remain naturally fertile. Our "higher power" is God, who specifically commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Apparently God knew the issue would come up for discussion and has already given his answer. I don't see much any "disclaimer" to this commandment. What does it say to do, when the planet becomes hypothetically, if ever, "bursting full" of people? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Go on marrying and having babies. My sister responded to my informal survey as to whether God's commandment still applies, saying that God has not rescinded his commandment. All my respondants indicated that God's commandment still applies. Some guy said something about world population being "huge," but it still applies.