Title:
The natural flow of human life has an intelligent underlying design, so letting it take its course, generally much improves things.
At what point though does it get to where there are so many people on the planet you can’t enjoy life? Life is no longer enjoyable and each person created will share in this.
We will never reach such point, or it is ellusive. Consider that children in a more supposedly "crowded" future, would think it just the normal thing, and worry even less about it, than we do. Consider in
The Jetsons futuristic cartoon, most everybody lives in highrises, and we are never told whether it is due to the extreme density of the population that people are routinely stacked into the sky, or whether it's just the "futuristic" way of doing things, or whether it's just for the scenic view—of other nearby highrises. I can't imagine that living in highrises does anything to help launch their flying cars. Why don't they tell us? Because nobody in the future, is even worried about it, they are so prosperous. Mr. George Jetson works 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, and apparently that's "full time" work, and what does he do at work? Push buttons. Why such a short workweek? Maybe it's the "overpopulation" and cutting hours to leave enough work for so many other people to have jobs too? If that's typical of future "overpopulation" problem, I am quite sure I can live with a nicely shorted workweek.
And much enjoyment of life comes from family and natural family growth. People need their freedom, which of course means that many will yearn to go on having their babies.
From dealing with asshole A) cutting you off in traffic and damn near killing you to asshole Z) trying to govern your life.....
You are extrapolating the wrong trends, that aren't likely to go that way into the future. Want to talk future predictions? I predict that people shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore. Too many human drivers are stupidly unprofessional. As computer software is much improved, computers will be our drivers, and drive far more safely and professionally. And cars taking to flying through the sky, will eliminate roads and traffic congestion? Will all that happen? Maybe not, but it will, long before population reaches the scary levels that you suggest. And don't you think that unnatural restrictions on childbearing, fall under your category of Z) trying to govern your life?
At what point does your life infringe on my quality of life and vice versa?
At what point does the quality of life get so low you can’t enjoy it, but only survive it and get through?
Far better to live on an "overcrowded" planet, than not at all, because there were too few births for you or I to have come along.
"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." somebody posted somewhere
Some liberals or feminists may try to claim that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If ever that was true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had large families? Wouldn't society be forced to populate denser? So our childbearing affects everybody. But my point is that the effects are largely positive, so it is society that ought to encourage large families, and advocate the natural flow of human life. People should be honest on census forms, if they have no reason to fear any "punishment," for the sake of proper development planning, and especially Constitutional population-proportional election requirements, as natural family growth is not a "private" matter, but a rather "public" matter perhaps a bit more so in an increasingly populous world. But that only means we can expect to hear from our parents or friends or whatever, "When are you going to give us some grandchildren?" Or the customary "Congratulations." It doesn't at all diminish our God-given right/duty to procreate.
People don't exist as mere cogs in some vast socialist society machine. No, society is merely a collection of individuals, for serving the many needs of individuals. We are all unique and have some God-given purpose. God created people, and he created us in his image, and everybody have great value and the right to live. Therefore, societies have no right to "limit" their population size, but it's more like, population is what it is. Our ancestors seemed to understand these things better, before all the confusion brought by the rampant contraceptive pushers and radical eco-freaks, so how is it that we so readily forget what with all our modern "education?"
Haven't you heard the "everybody could live in Texas" examples? The planet isn't anywhere near full. Don't we all "infringe" upon one another, in perhaps a few minor ways? But it's a fairly simple concept that by merely "scooting over" a bit, quite a lot more people can fit onto the planet. I am quite willing to "scoot over" for your children, if you will do the same for mine. How can people go on having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. By populating more densely and efficiently. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Welcome the various cities to grow larger and closer together, and build additional cities and towns in between the various growing cities, so that everybody may have their affordable place to live, and enjoy having "all the children that God gives."
Wouldn’t you agree that too many people on the planet would throw the entire planets balance of life off? Man is already the cause of extinction of certain animals and infringing on their habitat by expanding ours. As the only intellectual being on this planet I think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves in check......otherwise there will be nothing left. Humans consume more of nature than they give back......it will catch up to us.
In nature, most all life seeks to expand into most every availabe niche. Why should it be so different then, for man? I don't agree with the radical "environmentalists' " sense of "balance," because it doesn't leave enough room for man. Humans need to expand habitat, to keep housing affordable for the working poor, and to allow the human race to grow more naturally and relaxed, without growing too "overcrowded." God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, so we have no responsibility to keep our numbers "in check," but such matters are up to God, and we already have his word on the matter.
And that's another "environmental" error. Humans don't have a parasitic relationship with nature, but more of a symbiotic one. As our numbers grow, humanity and nature become more the same thing. A human-dominated nature, is a more urban form of nature, to which nature doesn't object if cities are designed right, because for humans
natural increase is quite
natural. People are part of nature, so too must the the cities it takes to hold all the people. I disagree with "environmentalists" drawing arbitrary lines that say that human habitat is unnatural. Upon what basis? Are we "intruding" aliens from another world? Not.
Human population growth is beautiful, because people are wonderous creatures, and with our natural multiplication, all the more people then have opportunity to enjoy living. The human race is supposed to blossom, and if the planet begins to "bulge" and become "pregnant" with people, so much the better, as pregnancy signifies a miraculous transition towards something much better, an impending "birth" of some sort. Like a child, the human race can't remain "little" forever, but the time comes to "grow up." It's all for the good, of people at least. And surely at least many parts of nature, if not nature in general, benefit from the rising human presense. "Man's best friend," dogs, seem to like it. When we multiply, they get to multiply too. Pets probably are already populated far denser than their natural wild levels would allow, so the only way they can multiply further, is for there to be more human homes to adopt them into. And pets seem to much prefer life with "strange" companion/company/friends humans, than left out on their own in the wild.