Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.
It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.
Incorrect. It hasn't ceased to be "nature's course," whatever that supposedly means, but still is, for humans are part of nature, so human influence upon nature, is part of nature. Going against nature then, is acting irrationally in contrary ways that don't benefit man. Just because humans may have found some useful means of "death control," does not at all obligate us to impose unnatural "birth control." Human population size was never supposed to be "balanced," but to naturally increase. Surely that's what God mean when God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means no population "stabilation" (stagnation), but a natural and deliberate propensity towards natural population growth as time passes.
If nature could have its way, nature would multiply us all the more, because all life seeks to expand into most every available niche, probably all the more with intelligent life, that can find all the more ways by which "it can." Nature would not consider humans "outside" of nature, but part of nature, even though God also created humans to transcend nature. If cities are built properly, why would nature have any "objection?" Of course though, the natural forces of man, are needed to maintain the cities and protect them from the ravages of neglect. And of course a garden, as they say, is much more beautiful than neglected jungle, but at least for now, both seem to have some place.
You can't "license" baby-making. Babies tend to "happen" regardless. Already due to this contraceptive-peddling-induced "demographic transition" theory nonsense, we are in danger of population atrophying, jeopardizing the great progress in technology that we started to make, quite much of it likely very much population-driven, when you think about it.
I do not believe in "earth control," as that is trying to enforce excessive "control" upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. I do not at all believe that countries need bother to try to limit their population size to a size "reasonable" for the amount of land. Whatever for? They can find ways to populate denser, vaster, even stack people vertically into highrises if they ever have to. We need not bother to limit natural family size, and why bother to fight forest fires out in remote unpopulated wilderness that nature could deal with without our costly "help?" With so many people now on the planet, the linkage of our efforts to human benefit, ought to be more consistant and clear. Sure, humans may alter nature, but I am very much opposed to "earth control," some grand globalist delusion that can do little more than impoverish the world with endless costly boondoggles. For example, if humans are causing some "global warming," which I seriously have much evidence to doubt, then fine, let the planet warm naturally. But trying to "fix" this presumed "problem" is "earth control" "tampering" with nature, because there's no clear benefit to man, to justify the expense and effort. Why would we "tamper" with what we don't understand, for no clear benefit at all? That's about what I said to somebody who asked me about some wacky idea of humans messing around with volcanos, to release sulfer into the atmosphere to help counter this "global warming." Insane! Why try to hinder nature perhaps trying to go back to Garden of Eden conditions, to encourage humans to breed all the more?
So much of the "environmental" movement thought, seems to envision humans as parasites to the planet. "Too many" people "infesting" the biosphere, and "Gaia" gets a "fever." What utter New Age religion garbage! More accurately, humans have a more symbiotic relationship with nature, while we humans may conveniently insulate ourselves from nature, we also become intertwined and part of nature. Nature benefits also, and our alternations benefit increasingly populous man. I think the movie "Artificial Intelligence" was partially on the right track, even if my interpretation differs from what it meant to say. God wouldn't be pleased with robotic pretend children, to take the place of God's children; but also, nature wouldn't be pleased to see humans disappear. What caused the ice age at the end of the movie? I think what happened, is that the robotic jigalos undermined natural human procreation, the population soon withered away, without humans around nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so things just froze up. As if nature was "crying" for the human race having had disappeared. Just when things were starting to get "interesting," humans go and "shoot themselves in the foot" and destroy themselves?
And so human population growth is beautiful, and it better respects nature and nature's God creator, to welcome our babies to go on naturally pushing out, without the needless bothers of unnatural, anti-family "birth control." So welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow naturally, unhindered.
The most natural and elegant way to deal with rising human populations, is to simply accept that there can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Where will we put all the additional billions perhaps yet to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. Where we have always put them historically. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, so some place can be found, or made, for all the people's precious and wondrous, darling little babies. Who very much like to come alive and be born, REGARDLESS of how many people they soon find they have to somehow share the planet with.
Nature is resilient. The planet can much more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life "birth control."
It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.
Growth control is beneficial to man, the natural, unhindered flow of life changed dramaticly with the ind' revolution and ceased to be ' nature's course' but was steered by man.....?
Incorrect. It hasn't ceased to be "nature's course," whatever that supposedly means, but still is, for humans are part of nature, so human influence upon nature, is part of nature. Going against nature then, is acting irrationally in contrary ways that don't benefit man. Just because humans may have found some useful means of "death control," does not at all obligate us to impose unnatural "birth control." Human population size was never supposed to be "balanced," but to naturally increase. Surely that's what God mean when God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means no population "stabilation" (stagnation), but a natural and deliberate propensity towards natural population growth as time passes.
If nature could have its way, nature would multiply us all the more, because all life seeks to expand into most every available niche, probably all the more with intelligent life, that can find all the more ways by which "it can." Nature would not consider humans "outside" of nature, but part of nature, even though God also created humans to transcend nature. If cities are built properly, why would nature have any "objection?" Of course though, the natural forces of man, are needed to maintain the cities and protect them from the ravages of neglect. And of course a garden, as they say, is much more beautiful than neglected jungle, but at least for now, both seem to have some place.
We all welcome babies but there is a time and place for everything. Do you see a problem with license's for child birth? if this was brought in within 100years the population growth would receede enough for pop', food, resource balance.
And if we are to learn anything from history it is not to trust religion when it comes to the survival of man, only to trust man........
You can't "license" baby-making. Babies tend to "happen" regardless. Already due to this contraceptive-peddling-induced "demographic transition" theory nonsense, we are in danger of population atrophying, jeopardizing the great progress in technology that we started to make, quite much of it likely very much population-driven, when you think about it.
I do not believe in "earth control," as that is trying to enforce excessive "control" upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. I do not at all believe that countries need bother to try to limit their population size to a size "reasonable" for the amount of land. Whatever for? They can find ways to populate denser, vaster, even stack people vertically into highrises if they ever have to. We need not bother to limit natural family size, and why bother to fight forest fires out in remote unpopulated wilderness that nature could deal with without our costly "help?" With so many people now on the planet, the linkage of our efforts to human benefit, ought to be more consistant and clear. Sure, humans may alter nature, but I am very much opposed to "earth control," some grand globalist delusion that can do little more than impoverish the world with endless costly boondoggles. For example, if humans are causing some "global warming," which I seriously have much evidence to doubt, then fine, let the planet warm naturally. But trying to "fix" this presumed "problem" is "earth control" "tampering" with nature, because there's no clear benefit to man, to justify the expense and effort. Why would we "tamper" with what we don't understand, for no clear benefit at all? That's about what I said to somebody who asked me about some wacky idea of humans messing around with volcanos, to release sulfer into the atmosphere to help counter this "global warming." Insane! Why try to hinder nature perhaps trying to go back to Garden of Eden conditions, to encourage humans to breed all the more?
So much of the "environmental" movement thought, seems to envision humans as parasites to the planet. "Too many" people "infesting" the biosphere, and "Gaia" gets a "fever." What utter New Age religion garbage! More accurately, humans have a more symbiotic relationship with nature, while we humans may conveniently insulate ourselves from nature, we also become intertwined and part of nature. Nature benefits also, and our alternations benefit increasingly populous man. I think the movie "Artificial Intelligence" was partially on the right track, even if my interpretation differs from what it meant to say. God wouldn't be pleased with robotic pretend children, to take the place of God's children; but also, nature wouldn't be pleased to see humans disappear. What caused the ice age at the end of the movie? I think what happened, is that the robotic jigalos undermined natural human procreation, the population soon withered away, without humans around nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so things just froze up. As if nature was "crying" for the human race having had disappeared. Just when things were starting to get "interesting," humans go and "shoot themselves in the foot" and destroy themselves?
And so human population growth is beautiful, and it better respects nature and nature's God creator, to welcome our babies to go on naturally pushing out, without the needless bothers of unnatural, anti-family "birth control." So welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow naturally, unhindered.
The most natural and elegant way to deal with rising human populations, is to simply accept that there can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Where will we put all the additional billions perhaps yet to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. Where we have always put them historically. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, so some place can be found, or made, for all the people's precious and wondrous, darling little babies. Who very much like to come alive and be born, REGARDLESS of how many people they soon find they have to somehow share the planet with.
Nature is resilient. The planet can much more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life "birth control."