lol
6 billion and counting
- Thread starter sly1
- Start date
lol
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Come on, no need to be crowd-phobic, scoot over a bit and make some room.
After the ignorant entered the fracas:
I agree! We could put a few dozens more into that beach:
I always enjoy the solitude of my Chinese vacation...
...but only after taking a pleasant ride on the Indian Express:
A few dozens? Thousands more would easily fit upon that beach. Just how much space does a person really need?
Sure, maybe a bit more space or solitude might be nice for something, but it's far more important to welcome our progeny to come to life.
As somebody said, either we find more space for more families, or we curtail our birthrates. Guess which one is the easier sell to the populous masses, most of whom are having their children? Look all around, there's lots of places to put more people, they say. I would have to agree. Have at it then.
Hey pronatalist not seen you for a whilehope you are OK and not had too many kids since i last spoke to you ...lol
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Don't let the cool world population odometer let up for a minute!
Nope, still looking for a wife.
See, natural controls are enough to control such things. Not everybody is ready to marry and get busy breeding, right at puberty.
But I wish I could report having had a couple of kiddos already.
I tell my sister and brother-in-law that they should have a few more children, but they say it's my turn now. But at least my brother-in-law has 7 children—what an honor. He had 5 by a previous wife, and 2 more with my sister. I do wish more people could stay with their original mates, but then I wouldn't have known such a nice person.
But of course, I still believe in using absolutely no method of "birth control," once I can get married, and encouraging everybody I can, to do likewise.
Nope, still looking for a wife.
See, natural controls are enough to control such things. Not everybody is ready to marry and get busy breeding, right at puberty.
But I wish I could report having had a couple of kiddos already.
I tell my sister and brother-in-law that they should have a few more children, but they say it's my turn now. But at least my brother-in-law has 7 children—what an honor. He had 5 by a previous wife, and 2 more with my sister. I do wish more people could stay with their original mates, but then I wouldn't have known such a nice person.
But of course, I still believe in using absolutely no method of "birth control," once I can get married, and encouraging everybody I can, to do likewise.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
BTW, the people in those beautiful pictures don't appear to be much bothered by the huge crowd. They appear to be having fun.
I guess "living in a crowd" does that to people. People ADAPT.
I guess "living in a crowd" does that to people. People ADAPT.
No it does not do that to people. I live in an overpopulated city and its terrible. There are far to many people sharing the same resources. I'd move if I could. Nothing ever stays clean because of the high traffic. The air is terrible, public schools are terrible, car traffic is horrendous, and instead of forming some sense of community people just form small cliques within their own niches and don't get along well with others, its depressing. I know it sounds cruel and I would never advocate it, but sometimes when I'm sitting in traffic for 3 hours every morning I wish people would be heavily taxed for having unnecessarily large families. Then I realize that I'm just being selfish, but still having 23 kids is using up way more than your fair share of resources.
I agree.
Except the part about "saving the planet".
Frankly this planet has survived worse than us. It will probably survive us. I suspect we will be a very small 1million(more like 40,000) year blip on the Earth's 4-5 billion year, time line.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
I am a natural introvert, and yet I much defend the rights of the crowds to exist.
I am a natural introvert, and yet I much defend the rights of the crowds to exist.
Human dignity and sacredness of each and every human life, doesn't allow for such base ways of valuing or disparaging human life. The 23rd child is worth just as much, as the 1st child. Parents simply are not obligated to "limit" their childbearing. Nor do people have any obligation to go against nature, and directly pollute their bodies with nasty cancer-stick cigarettes, ugly tattooing inks, bizarre body piercings, to wear superficial vain make-up, nor to use or experiment with shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons.
Presumably you aren't required to stay in a city you don't like, although nobody is required to "give" you the money to move, and you would seem to have a choice of cities and towns. People obviously can't both enjoy a right to have "unlimited" numbers of children, AND for everybody to live miles from their nearest neighbor. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. One or the other. People have just as much right to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, in the most supposedly "overpopulated" cities around, as in the spacious countryside. In fact, I suspect that "overcrowded" shantytowns make it even harder for people not to breed, as perhaps they become aware of the sounds of neighbors also reproducing, through thin walls, and it tends to arouse them also to reproduce at the same time. Obviously, people need their proper, moral "sexual relief," and as more children go through puberty and transition into women of childbearing age, they have as much right to have all the children they are meant to have, as any previous, but smaller, generations, regardless of whether they happen to live in a "monstrous" supercity naturally coelescing into other nearby also-growing cities, or not.
I am a natural introvert, and yet I much defend the rights of the crowds to exist.
Human dignity and sacredness of each and every human life, doesn't allow for such base ways of valuing or disparaging human life. The 23rd child is worth just as much, as the 1st child. Parents simply are not obligated to "limit" their childbearing. Nor do people have any obligation to go against nature, and directly pollute their bodies with nasty cancer-stick cigarettes, ugly tattooing inks, bizarre body piercings, to wear superficial vain make-up, nor to use or experiment with shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons.
Presumably you aren't required to stay in a city you don't like, although nobody is required to "give" you the money to move, and you would seem to have a choice of cities and towns. People obviously can't both enjoy a right to have "unlimited" numbers of children, AND for everybody to live miles from their nearest neighbor. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. One or the other. People have just as much right to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, in the most supposedly "overpopulated" cities around, as in the spacious countryside. In fact, I suspect that "overcrowded" shantytowns make it even harder for people not to breed, as perhaps they become aware of the sounds of neighbors also reproducing, through thin walls, and it tends to arouse them also to reproduce at the same time. Obviously, people need their proper, moral "sexual relief," and as more children go through puberty and transition into women of childbearing age, they have as much right to have all the children they are meant to have, as any previous, but smaller, generations, regardless of whether they happen to live in a "monstrous" supercity naturally coelescing into other nearby also-growing cities, or not.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Consider just how "crowded" the womb was, before you emerged from your mother. And how your life, possibly "inconvenienced" her somewhat. And yet she loved you enough to welcome it. People have a God-given right to live and also to reproduce, but not so clear a right to X amount of privacy and personal space. That's far more subjective, and not so much absolute. So the latter is more along the lines of "luxury" and not so much "necessity."
Of course there's plenty of all that for everybody, were economies to serve more of the people more fairly.
Of course there's plenty of all that for everybody, were economies to serve more of the people more fairly.
Our best hope is education and cooperation without tipping the Security-Liberty balance. Lots of goodwill, a little luck, and we'll be on our way.
Depends, people live in clusters, so geographically the earth can support more, the problem is resources.
When it comes to India and Japan both will likely be suffering massive numbers of lives lost due to volcanic activity and tsunamis, China will need to expand, they will be taking land I'm sure and with that many people will likely be killed, the nations surrounding the Mediterranean are highly populated, eventually volcanic activity will do a large portion of them in as well.
When it comes to the West Tsunamis will likely play a role in the future of America's coast lines, on top of all this you have the number of people infected with Malaria and HIV ect.
Point being, earth has it's own population control(Sickness, starvation, disasters and war) I think ethically let nature take it's course.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
What if the population rise, actually is intractable,and naturally self-accomodating?
But most people don't live in harm's way, most people survive natural disasters, many such disasters as hurricanes are predictable and allow time for people to evacuate or take certain precautions, and humans are highly adaptable.
So I agree somewhat with "let nature take its course," but in a human-friendly way. If humans don't "control" their numbers, neither will nature. We will end up having to ADAPT as our numbers further increase. Which is of course, great reason to go on increasing, for the positive changes it will bring anyway.
What we are looking at, is that humans will continue to fill some of the gaps in between all the people, with still more people, as we add perhaps a few more billions within the next half century or so. I really don't see any reason that it must be so bad, for humans can be, a great asset to each other, when they want to be.
"Resources" really is no excuse to deny people their children, for if we allow people to get away unchallenged saying that, isn't that like saying that the government owns the resources, if the government can "limit" population growth based on pretense of "resources," and so they are free to "manufacture scarcity" any time they like, to line the pockets of their corporate bigwig stockholder friends?
Way too much effort is being wasted in how to "control" population or trick people out of their precious God-given children, and not near enough exploration of how humans might actually alter the planet, to better support so many people, as a few population worryworts like to opine that we may or may not be headed towards. The path of ADAPTATION, rather than resisting "what must be," is the far more productive and human-beneficial path. And it's in keeping with respecting nature and nature's creator God, to welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. That means urging people to relax, and not bother with any awkward experimental anti-life means of "birth control" at all, but encourage families everywhere to grow naturally, eagerly welcoming baby booms to spread and intensify naturally, even in the most populous of regions, so that all the more fellow human beings can experience life.
But most people don't live in harm's way, most people survive natural disasters, many such disasters as hurricanes are predictable and allow time for people to evacuate or take certain precautions, and humans are highly adaptable.
So I agree somewhat with "let nature take its course," but in a human-friendly way. If humans don't "control" their numbers, neither will nature. We will end up having to ADAPT as our numbers further increase. Which is of course, great reason to go on increasing, for the positive changes it will bring anyway.
What we are looking at, is that humans will continue to fill some of the gaps in between all the people, with still more people, as we add perhaps a few more billions within the next half century or so. I really don't see any reason that it must be so bad, for humans can be, a great asset to each other, when they want to be.
"Resources" really is no excuse to deny people their children, for if we allow people to get away unchallenged saying that, isn't that like saying that the government owns the resources, if the government can "limit" population growth based on pretense of "resources," and so they are free to "manufacture scarcity" any time they like, to line the pockets of their corporate bigwig stockholder friends?
Way too much effort is being wasted in how to "control" population or trick people out of their precious God-given children, and not near enough exploration of how humans might actually alter the planet, to better support so many people, as a few population worryworts like to opine that we may or may not be headed towards. The path of ADAPTATION, rather than resisting "what must be," is the far more productive and human-beneficial path. And it's in keeping with respecting nature and nature's creator God, to welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered. That means urging people to relax, and not bother with any awkward experimental anti-life means of "birth control" at all, but encourage families everywhere to grow naturally, eagerly welcoming baby booms to spread and intensify naturally, even in the most populous of regions, so that all the more fellow human beings can experience life.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
By "saving the planet" I meant saving nature in its current state, or rather its prehuman state.
Not to keep it exactly as it is now, but to keep the natural course of evolution and richness of species. In short, functioning ecosystems.
I think you underestimate the destructive abilities of humanity.
At this rate the world will be a very nasty place in a couple of hundred years.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Good for you.. it's a dead end. Literally.
But parenthood comes the burden of responsibility so when this women has her first child it has all the resources it needs for a shot at a good life, the more children the less resources they have to help them grow so instead of having 6 healthy children growing into 6 healthy adults you have 12-23 children spending a childhood suffering from malnutrition which leads to disease and other health problems, loss of education( not enough resources for you to send them all to school) and a list of other potential negative side effects....so the responsibility lies with the patent to balance what she can offer with what she wants if she can only offer enough for 6, she should limit herself to 6 no more....thats a responsible parent
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Human population growth should be a one-way road favoring natural population growth.
No, it's not a dead end, unless you mean that it's a one-way road. As they say, "There's no going back." Once the world naturally grows more populous, it's rather intractable, and larger populous should become "entrenched" and ADAPTS to grow even more.
Human population size is inherently unstable, and was designed to show a remarkable penchant towards growth, but the rampant contraceptive pushing underlying the so-called "Demographic Transition" theory, and the spreading "Birth Dearth," introduces yet another instability, that should be considered even more troubling than the first natural one favoring the natural ENLARGEMENT of the human race.
No, it's not a dead end, unless you mean that it's a one-way road. As they say, "There's no going back." Once the world naturally grows more populous, it's rather intractable, and larger populous should become "entrenched" and ADAPTS to grow even more.
Human population size is inherently unstable, and was designed to show a remarkable penchant towards growth, but the rampant contraceptive pushing underlying the so-called "Demographic Transition" theory, and the spreading "Birth Dearth," introduces yet another instability, that should be considered even more troubling than the first natural one favoring the natural ENLARGEMENT of the human race.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Welcoming the natural flow of human life, means for many families, having more than 6
Well I don't see that the natural flow of human population, is something you can just flip a switch on and off and "control." Why stop at 6 children? If many people have as many as 6 children, that contributes significantly to human population growth already. 6 seems an awfully "arbitrary" number. Couldn't quite possibly, the parents who can presumably handle raising 6 children, also handle 8 children, or maybe 10 children? Maybe they just can't stop, having children? Maybe they rather like, having children, or being pregnant. Those who for whatever reasons, have difficulty in "limiting" how many children they have, refuse to "control" the size of their families, have "religious" objections to "birth control," or for whatever reasons fail to find a "satisfactory" method of "family planning," who's to say they couldn't somehow raise 12 or more children? At least some parents. Not everybody who adopts has infertility problems, perhaps some already have a "large" number of children, but love and nurture children so well, they are willing to take in other people's children also.
Surprising, children of large families, are often strangely open, to having even more brothers and sisters. I asked a younger son of a large family of 8 children, what he thought about it. He said he would like to have more brothers. I think he said something about being the youngest of 3 brothers, and he had 5 sisters, and he would like to have somebody his age to play with. Children are often delighted to get another baby in the family. Children just don't see the world, the same way that cynical adults do. The world is a "magical" place, where they don't know yet, how everything works.
Isn't there some verse in the Bible, something about how God is not impressed with the nation that sheds innocent blood, killing off their children, in order to enlarge their borders? No, human life matters so much more. If we think we can get rich by having fewer children, it's just not going to work, at least not on the national level. As they say, "nature abhors a vacuum." If we don't have our children to invest into, something else will come along to take whatever money we thought we were saving, away. Taxes, disasters, corporate greed, gasoline price-gouging, expensive sports cars and boats. We won't get the benefit of ill-gotten gain. As if God is saying, that he will not be mocked. People could have had so many blessings in having had the children they were meant to have. Even if the greater financial blessings, to better provide for our children, don't seem to come, people's lives are so much more rewarding and fulfilling anyway, when they go ahead and have their children.
Well I don't see that the natural flow of human population, is something you can just flip a switch on and off and "control." Why stop at 6 children? If many people have as many as 6 children, that contributes significantly to human population growth already. 6 seems an awfully "arbitrary" number. Couldn't quite possibly, the parents who can presumably handle raising 6 children, also handle 8 children, or maybe 10 children? Maybe they just can't stop, having children? Maybe they rather like, having children, or being pregnant. Those who for whatever reasons, have difficulty in "limiting" how many children they have, refuse to "control" the size of their families, have "religious" objections to "birth control," or for whatever reasons fail to find a "satisfactory" method of "family planning," who's to say they couldn't somehow raise 12 or more children? At least some parents. Not everybody who adopts has infertility problems, perhaps some already have a "large" number of children, but love and nurture children so well, they are willing to take in other people's children also.
Surprising, children of large families, are often strangely open, to having even more brothers and sisters. I asked a younger son of a large family of 8 children, what he thought about it. He said he would like to have more brothers. I think he said something about being the youngest of 3 brothers, and he had 5 sisters, and he would like to have somebody his age to play with. Children are often delighted to get another baby in the family. Children just don't see the world, the same way that cynical adults do. The world is a "magical" place, where they don't know yet, how everything works.
Isn't there some verse in the Bible, something about how God is not impressed with the nation that sheds innocent blood, killing off their children, in order to enlarge their borders? No, human life matters so much more. If we think we can get rich by having fewer children, it's just not going to work, at least not on the national level. As they say, "nature abhors a vacuum." If we don't have our children to invest into, something else will come along to take whatever money we thought we were saving, away. Taxes, disasters, corporate greed, gasoline price-gouging, expensive sports cars and boats. We won't get the benefit of ill-gotten gain. As if God is saying, that he will not be mocked. People could have had so many blessings in having had the children they were meant to have. Even if the greater financial blessings, to better provide for our children, don't seem to come, people's lives are so much more rewarding and fulfilling anyway, when they go ahead and have their children.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you think the Earth is of unlimited size ? Or that the Earth has unlimited resources ?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Of course I know the Earth to be a "finite" sphere. But why so much emphasis upon the planet, and not of the many needs of people? Each and every human life is immensely valuable and sacred.
So many breeders, ahem parents, look around and say, there's all sorts of place to put more people. Well then, that must be the answer. Put more people into more places.
Back in Genesis, Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, decided to move farther apart, to have room to grow more comfortably and safely. Spreading out, would still seem the first prefered option. And there's much "empty" wilderness areas that could receive lots of people, should people ever choose to spread out and live there. But in a "modern" age of supposedly vanishing frontiers, might there be some other options to ACCOMODATE more people? As they say of a sperical world, there's only but so far that people can spread out, before they run into themselves again. As I see it, there's really 3 perceptional dimensions people can spread into. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards, is of course, build more cities and suburbs and towns. Inwards is exploring various high-density options, where people would prefer to all live in much the same place. Large apartment or condo complexes, infilling underutilized land, adding more streets within cities. Even larger households, which I have been reading of the modern household becoming too small and thus wasteful of resources per capita. Upwards is obviously highrises and skyscrapers.
There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people, and according to the demographers, we may only be talking about a teeny-weeny few more billions of people. Now how hard can that really be? It's not even calling for anything "new," just a little more urban sprawl here and there, to find some place for all our progeny. We're already well used to such very necessary changes/improvements.
The one who is willing to breed 10-12 times???