6 billion and counting

[Pronatalist]

Title: "Overpopulation" may not even be so much an ecological "problem" anymore, so much as a social issue. Can't people be extremely abundant, and also not be poor?

Pronatalism helps us more readily make any needed adaptations to our rising numbers. By deciding to be more deliberately fond of people, we help insure each and every person's place in society, no matter how numerous we may manage to grow.

We humans are way due to another disease going around the globe and whipping out a few million people. If not that, peak oil is going to put a cap on overpopulation....

Why? Why the gloom and doom? The "religion" of parroted Malthusianism? Environmentalism? Commu-nism?

A few million more people are added to the globe, every week. If a disease was to wipe out a few billion, biologically or demographically, would they even be missed?, as with current rates of growth, even people lost to major disasters are quickly "replaced." Of course their loved ones will miss them, but that's a social issue, not a "controlling numbers" issue, isn't it? See one reason why I call for welcoming world population density to rise naturally? We grow by a "city" of some 200,000 more people, each and every day. Fortunately, not all those births come to the same place, but are widely dispersed throughout the globe. Disease is not a help, but something to be prevented or "controlled" via the vaccines and other public sanitation methods designed to allow humans to populate far denser than people did in the past. Getting rid of people, is such a huge waste, even if by supposedly "natural" means such as famine and disease. Do you really think that the breeders want to raise children, to see them die?

Now most children grow up, to have productive lives, marry, and also to reproduce themselves. The challenge isn't how to "limit" our numbers, but rather more how to welcome all the more people to fill up the land, have access to plenty of things they want and need, while reducing certain pollutions harmful to man. So we have trash pickup and flush toilets in our homes, to allow us to populate so much more vastly and densely than in the past, in huge cities even, if we like.

Peak oil is a fraud as well, a trendy "environmental" myth that the greedy oil corporations monopoly would probably like us to believe, so that they can put the squeeze on their production, and ramp up their profits, at our expense.

Our environment isn't interested in putting the "brakes" on world population growth, but seems far more to "favor" our natural growth in numbers. All life seeks to grow and expand into most every available niche. All the more so it would seem with people, presumably with the intelligence even to bend nature to further that natural desire with people especially.

Even proper moral behavior and better nutrition, themselves do much to help keep disease "in check" regardless of our growing numbers. Must I remind people that humans have an immune system. Just another sign that we were designed to grow potentially very densely populated.

 

[Pronatalist]

Title: Many religious people believe it best to keep "the door to life" open. That means the "no method" method of "family planning," is the natural ideal to promote.

It's just a reflex from days of old when you had to create as many babies as you could in order for a few of them to survive.
In the West that instinct is largely overrun and there's actually a decline in population.

Not everybody in the West buys into that "merely to maintain the population size is good enough" theory. Another reason to welcome the natural flow of life, is to welcome the numbers of people alive getting to enjoy life, to naturally expand. That means, go on having babies, in the most populous of countries or regions as well, as more and more people would be glad to live. That most every baby will likely survive, to grow up and have still more babies, is all the more reason to be having babies. Who wants to do all the effort of raising children, to see them die? Don't we even want for our children to outlive us, perhaps even to provide some "old age" security for the problems that may come upon us in old age, to have family to take care of us in our elderly years? With more children, the odds are enhanced that at least one of the childrens' families will take us in, or live close by, or be glad to help, or can take turns helping.

The new developing countries like India and China haven't yet mentally switched from the previous state, but it's only a question of a few decades, imo, till they too get into modern norm.

I don't expect them to have to make that switch, because it's a "family planning" induced perversion, and "rebellion" against God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And the rampant contraceptive peddling underlying the so-called "demographic transition" theory, really disgusts me. Many people in China still yearn to enjoy having "traditionally very large" families. Is that to merely maintain the current huge population size? Not at all. But people quite often like to have families of a size that keeps the population growing. Commie Chairman Mao encouraged large families and discouraged "birth control," claiming that a large and growing population would make China strong. So did the people naturally multiply to such huge numbers, just because commie Mao thought it a good idea? No, I imagine they had their own reasons, and reproduction is primal instinct and in our genes. Chairman Mao was right, as misguided liberals are sometimes right, probably for much the same reason that a broken clock is right twice a day. They just "accidently" hit upon the right answer once in a while. Or "copy"/steal the right answer from more level-headed logical conservatives. Human reproduction is natural, so leave the people alone to "do their thing." Besides, it keeps the people busy, to help keep them from getting bored and wanting to overthrow their corrupt government. Let the people breed, for it keeps the powers that be, in power, to not too much stir up the wrath of the people.

I don't think this is a really long term problem.

Because humans are highly adaptable. We soon make many useful adjustments to our rising numbers, that make them so much easier to get by with.

Another problem is Africa which the western countries keep feeding irresponsibly, so they are breeding irresponsibly. Stop food aid and stop lots of population growth in Africa. Any way, Africa is a special case, just close the borders and let them deal with themselves, assist only with educational and engineering aid.

That gets into the perverted "lifeboat ethic" I read about in some secular misguided college textbook. Supposedly, say some anti-human extremists, helping the poor is counterproductive. Earth supposedly is like a tiny little lifeboat, only able to hold but a few people. By giving (or selling or trading) food and medicine to the developing countries, we supposedly increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing. But I already propose a more densely and efficiently populated planet, as the obvious answer to how we are to go on enjoying having our babies in a world with so many people alive already. So of course I would want to allow people to live longer, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing. As I welcome the human race to naturally populate denser and denser and more efficiently, promoting the necessarily development to also do it more comfortably and safely. All countries should be expected to do their part to help the planet hold lots more people, primarily by welcoming their own natural increase—their very own precious darling children! So don't whine about how "crowded" it's supposedly getting, build more houses and apartment complexes, and more cities, and whatever the people need. Besides, people will do it themselves or buy these things themselves, because they need the jobs anyhow.

 

[Avatar]

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

 

[Pronatalist]

Title: For now at least, populating the planet much denser, is a whole lot easier than expanding to colonize more worlds.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

Nonsense. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Quite a lot more people can easily fit upon the planet, primarily by welcoming cities and towns to grow larger and closer together.

How can people go on having their babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Quite simple really. Allow humans to both live and breed, in closer proximity to their many neighbors, on the global scale at least. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.

In the past, people could always spread out. Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, set that example pretty clearly in Genesis, when they decided to move farther apart, so as to go on growing naturally. But obviously on a "finite" sphere of a planet, there's only but so far people can spread out, before they run into themselves again. But that's hardly the "end of the road" in today's "modern" age of supposedly vanishing frontiers. There's 3 perceptional dimensions that people can yet spread into, as I see it. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards of course, means urban sprawl. Bigger and more cities. Suburbs upon suburbs. Inwards is infilling underutilized land, building additional streets within existing cities, or even larger households or children sharing bedrooms or beds. Allowing human bodies to grow somewhat even closer together as numbers naturally rise. Upwards is of course, stacking people into apartment complexes, highrises, or even population arcologies. If our options of "spreading out" are becoming a wee bit limited perhaps, then that only means, that it may be coming time, to "come together" then. Let cities grow closer together and even coelesce into one another. Abraham and Lot's tribes didn't spread out to slow or stop their growth, but to allow for it, and to "buy time" until humans could better figure out how to populate themselves more densely and safely, but also more comfortably and safely.

 

[Avatar]

Fit - yes. Live - no.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

You seem to be thinking that cities are something independant from this planet.
Do cities grow their own food? Do cities mine their own resources?

Humanity is a part of this planet's ecosystem, and this ecosystem has limited resources, therefore the amount of humans this planet can sustain is limited. QED.

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

 

[Repo Man]

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

I keep mentally debating whether or not to do this as well. If you've read one of his posts, you've read them all, but there is something so jaw droppingly amazing about what he believes. His posts are like multi car pile ups on the freeway; horrible, yet you are almost compelled to look.

His posts do increase my sense that a large asteroid slamming into this planet wouldn't be all bad.

 

[Pronatalist]

Title: Last time I checked, the planet had no "maximum capacity" sign.

Fit - yes. Live - no.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

You seem to be thinking that cities are something independant from this planet.
Do cities grow their own food? Do cities mine their own resources?

Human existence is somewhat independent these days, of ecological systems. People even know how to pipe and desalinate ocean water. Farmers are becoming so productive at producing food, that the world seems to have a growing obesity pandemic. You should read more stuff by such authors as Julian Simon. In free markets under good leadership, people soon find ways to use more efficiently, or substitute, resources supposedly in short supply. Costs in real terms, like hours worked to buy stuff, decline, while stuff in our homes accumulates. How much of the stuff that we think we just got to have, is really necessary to survival? Food basically, and not a whole lot else. Houses can be made of almost anything that can hold up to the weather. Energy can be produced, so many different ways.

So yeah, there's nothing in nature to prevent human cities from growing possibly larger and closer together. Sure, cities bring in things from outside them, but often things come from other cities, or from places not much hindered by cities getting larger and covering more land.

Humanity is a part of this planet's ecosystem, and this ecosystem has limited resources, therefore the amount of humans this planet can sustain is limited. QED.

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

You say this stuff almost as if established fact. But human population "carrying capacity" is still very much under debate, and has not been conclusively established. Many people have good reason to claim that "limits" are ellusive or non-applicable to humans, at least well into the foreseeable future. Governments and corporations, often may like for people to go on breeding, as more people probably means more customers, more tax revenues, more profits, more vast lucritive markets. Besides, how could they get the people to stop breeding anyway?

There is a natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges. Pregnancy. There's a natural remedy for pregnancy. Childbirth. Many people of religious or faith persuation, consider such a natural flow of human life, something "beautiful" and even some athiests see the natural expansion of the human race, as somehow furthering our "progress." I consider it quite likely, that the natural purpose of human reproductive organs, just could be ... reproduction. So why should I have any objection to women squeezing out from between their legs, just as many babies as their bodies want to produce? Let the human race flourish and blossom, as it should! It's beautiful to welcome the planet to "blossom" with human life.

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

 

[Enmos]

His posts do increase my sense that a large asteroid slamming into this planet wouldn't be all bad.

:thumbsup:

 

[Syzygys]

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

It is actually 7 billions, but we are working on it:

 

[Repo Man]

Pronatalist must be back on his meds.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Title: Last time I checked, the planet had no "maximum capacity" sign.

You say this stuff almost as if established fact. But human population "carrying capacity" is still very much under debate, and has not been conclusively established. Many people have good reason to claim that "limits" are ellusive or non-applicable to humans, at least well into the foreseeable future.

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

A few quotes from a passage....
"the first big jump in world population came with the neolithic revolution and agriculture. J.Huxley estimates that the pop' began to increase at a rate that doubled every 1,700 years or so. By the opening of the bronze age, the world population may have been about 25mil; by the begining of the iron age, 70mil; the start of the christian era, 170mil, with 1/3 roman empire, 1/3 chinese empire, the rest scattered.
By 1600 the earth's pop' tataled perhaps 500mil, a lot less than the current pop. of India.
At that point the smooth rate of growth stopped, and the pop.explosion began. explorers opened up 18mil Sq miles of new land to colonization by Europeans.
The 18th century Ind'revolution accelerated production of food and people.
The doubling of the world's pop' now took place not in a period of 2 millennia but in less than 2 centuries.it went from-
500mil in 1600-
900mil in 1800- then it started to grow at an even faster rate-
1.6bil in 1900-
1900-1970 it has climbed to 3.6bil despite 2 world wars (this was written in the 70's).
In 1970 the world pop. increased at a rate of 220,000 per day or 70mil a year. this was an increase of 2.0% each year (estimated increase in 1650 was only 0.3%). At this rate the earths pop. would double in about 35 years, some regions a shorter time.
Despite the Malthusian view (pop. will grow faster than the food supply) the world's pop. has apace without any serious setbacks......"

and..
"Then what? If the rate of increase of the human pop. continues unchecked at it's present rate,all our science and technical invention will still leave us struggling uphill like Sisyphus.
If you cannot accept this appraisal, consider the powers of Geometric Progression. It has been estimated that the total quantity of living matter on earth is equal to 2 x 10\19(to the power of 19)grams. If so, the total mass of THE TOTAL MASS OF HUMANITY IN 1970 WAS ABOUT 1/100,000 OF THE MASS OF ALL LIFE. If the earths pop. continues to double every 35 years (as it was) BY 2750 IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED 100,000 FOLD, THE MASS OF HUMANITY WOULD COMPRISE OF ALL LIFE.
Even if we could imagine artificial foodstuffs out of the inorganic world via yeast culture,hydroponics no advance could match the inexorable number increase involved in doubling every 35 yrs.
at 2600 A.D. it would reach 630,000 bil- STANDING ROOM ONLY.2 1/2 sq ft per person on the entire land surface.
Increase at the same rate by 3550 A.D. THE TOTAL MASS OF HUMAN TISSUE WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE MASS OF THE EARTH.
If we could colonize other planets assume this-
IF WE HAD 1,000 BILLION OTHER PLANETS WHICH HUMANITY COLONIZED, AT THE CONTINUED POP. INCREASE BY THE YEAR 5000 A.D. THEY WOULD HAVE STANDING ROOM ONLY.
AND BY 7000 A.D. THE MASS OF HUMANITY WOULD EQUATE THE MASS OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE."

obviously, the human race cannot increase at this rate for long........

Remember this was written in the 70's

 

[Yorda]

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

but according to this site, people who fear overpopulation have planned world wars and diseases (AIDS) to reduce population: http://www.threeworldwars.com/index.html

 

[Syzygys]

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

Idiot. So when we have 20 people per square feet, won't some of them fall into the ocean??

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

but according to this site, people who fear overpopulation have planned world wars and diseases (AIDS) to reduce population: http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm

there is no way the earth can support infinite people. it is not logical.

the math states that 2 world wars had little or no effect on slowing the pop. explosion?

While this can't go on, to see it as a joke is a joke in itself.

 

[clusteringflux]

Here's an idea. If you hate people and think overpop is a huge problem ,go jump off a cliff. Exercise your remaining freedom and lead by example all at ounce.

Then people who enjoy life and other humans won't have to listen to your crap about sterilization, abortion and gay sex to curb the human cancer....

Maybe nobody has noticed but many countries are facing economic break downs because of low birth rates. No new workers means no new money. When the SS program started in the US there were 141 people supporting every recipient. NOW there is 2. That means if you are married with no children, you and your spouse are already supporting 1 other person.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Maybe nobody has noticed but many countries are facing economic break downs because of low birth rates. No new workers means no new money. When the SS program started in the US there were 141 people supporting every recipient. NOW there is 2. That means if you are married with no children, you and your spouse are already supporting 1 other person.

I don't quite get what you are saying?
are you saying there is not enough people?
Economic breakdown wouldn't that be more like people cannot afford to go to work, or the majority of workers have emigrated or been part of a forced economic migration, which would lead to decrease in birthrate and loss of workers in the areas migrated from?

 

[clusteringflux]

I don't quite get what you are saying?
are you saying there is not enough people?
Economic breakdown wouldn't that be more like people cannot afford to go to work, or the majority of workers have emigrated or been part of a forced economic migration, which would lead to decrease in birthrate and loss of workers in the areas migrated from?

Westerners are being conditioned to think children are not worth the trouble. In a welfare state, it has serious implications for their retirements.

But, the immigrants may pick up the slack....Or vote the west into oblivion.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/25/i_ins.01.html

 

[nietzschefan]

The problem is not 6 Billions.

Compare the total weight of living matter with dead matter even on our own planet. Take this equation to our solar system, our galaxy, our universe.

The problem is 1-2 billion drag down the the rest with their dead weight.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

.

The problem is 1-2 billion drag down the the rest with their dead weight.

you are probably right but even if we killed 3bil within approx 35 years they will be back, you still have to stop the growth rate, also who would decide who lives who dies?

 

[sly1]

you are probably right but even if we killed 3bil within approx 35 years they will be back, you still have to stop the growth rate, also who would decide who lives who dies?

Well its possible nature itself will decide who lives and dies. If not nature then the elite of the human race would decide....ie: those in positions of power....lol which is kinda funny considering most are voted on by the people they would exterminate.....ahh the irony.

its highly possible nature will find a way to solve the problem for us and it wont need to be a decision made by the elite.....plagues, floods, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, hurricanes......any or all of the above.