6 billion and counting

[Enmos]

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.

Sure, we could cut down the rainforests to accommodate them.
And while we're at it, maybe melt the polar icecaps and built new cities there.
Of course, in the end, we would have killed off most of Earth wildlife but hey we are sooo sacred. The animals and plants just have to make place for us.

 

[Myles]

Educating people on birth control techniques and sterilization are but 2 ways

to help reduce human infestation.

But that could mean fewer Popes and reincarnated Dalai Lamas.

 

[Myles]

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.

Stop thinking of space; think resources.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Sharing very limited resources with a whole lot of people is not fun. Its miserable and its really scary. I can only imagine what that would be like on a global scale.

 

[Pronatalist]

Nope, still looking for a wife.

The one who is willing to breed 10-12 times???

So by the time I find a wife, or God gives me a wife, maybe I only breed 4 or 5 times? What of it? My point has been to respect the natural flow of human life unhindered. Not to use any awkward means of anti-family "birth control." Whether that means I end up with 5 children, or 12 children.

One big reason I am disgusted with "birth control," is its connection with Big Pharma. I'm hardly some experimental lab rat for their shoddy awkward unnatural experimental contraceptive potions and poisons. Check out this link, as to what I don't like about the greedy, corporation-dominated medical rip-off industry:

really funny YouTube video: Big Pharma Ultimate Commerical

 

[Pronatalist]

Cut down the jungles? Now why didn't I think of that? I shall add that to the list of options.​

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.

Sure, we could cut down the rainforests to accommodate them.
And while we're at it, maybe melt the polar icecaps and built new cities there.
Of course, in the end, we would have killed off most of Earth wildlife but hey we are sooo sacred. The animals and plants just have to make place for us.

First of all, it's "jungles," not "rainforests." Apparently, I didn't get the memo that went around to all the liberals and medias, to substitute "rainforest" for the quaint old-fashioned term overgrown "jungle," and if I had, I wouldn't have agreed with it anyway.

Nature has no rights, but only what we convey to it. Humans have rights. Anytime that I have done any population density calculations, I exclude Antartica, as I imagine it's a rather safe assumption, that even the population phobics aren't really so desperate for "space" as to build cities there.

Wildlife don't vote and don't pay taxes, so I really don't see that wildlife should get much place in the debate. Much wildlife seems to do okay, even without our "help."

 

[Pronatalist]

Educating people on birth control techniques and sterilization are but 2 ways

to help reduce human infestation.

But that could mean fewer Popes and reincarnated Dalai Lamas.

Well there you go. What reason more need we, to let people multiply? Thanks for settling that for us.

 

[Pronatalist]

Yawn. The Running-Out-Of-Resources argument has been largely discredited, long ago.​

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.

Stop thinking of space; think resources.

Why? Space is more fun and easier to understand.

So you want to talk "resources?" I can do that as well. One huge problem with allowing "resources" to be used as an excuse for coercing population "control," is that implies that the government "owns" the resources, rather than the people themselves. (Why do liberals so often, not like to clutter their little minds with technical "details" as to why their stupid ideas can't possibly work?) Now if the government "owns" the resources, then isn't the government free to "manufacture scarcity" any time they like, to line the pockets of their corporate bigwig good-ol'-boy special interests or campaign contributor networks? At the expense of the hard-working American taxpayer, but of course.

 

[Pronatalist]

And yet, isn't India becoming a better place to live, even as the population grows?​

Or because the population grows.

Sharing very limited resources with a whole lot of people is not fun. Its miserable and its really scary. I can only imagine what that would be like on a global scale.

Well that's why I imagine I won't be among the first people in line, when the new Mars colony opens up. (metaphorical example) Because I have seen the movie "Total Recall." Sharing a "crowded" Earth, with a natural ecosystem that sort of just works, pretty much all by itself, is a lot less scary than sharing a man-made ecosystem, perhaps ruled by power-mad governmental psychopaths. It's not the man-made ecosystem that's scary, it's the scary people we would have to share it with. At least the Earth, provides much sloppy leeway for all sorts of government bumbles. When government predictably fails, people turn to relatives, friends, family, buy their stuff on the black market, or emigrate to other countries.

Of course Mars might not be so bad? Maybe people will rush to go, as they think it will be the morons that stay behind.

Wasn't it some Twilight Zone episode, where the world is all about to end, and all the world's "best and smartest" people get on their fancy spaceship and flee the scene, leaving the rest of us to perish, but of course, and the crisis suddenly goes away. Seems that the people who left, the intellectuals, WERE the problem. Then the crisis becomes, when the spaceship comes back, they have to stop it from landing.

 

[Enmos]

Cut down the jungles? Now why didn't I think of that? I shall add that to the list of options.​

First of all, it's "jungles," not "rainforests." Apparently, I didn't get the memo that went around to all the liberals and medias, to substitute "rainforest" for the quaint old-fashioned term overgrown "jungle," and if I had, I wouldn't have agreed with it anyway.

Nature has no rights, but only what we convey to it. Humans have rights. Anytime that I have done any population density calculations, I exclude Antartica, as I imagine it's a rather safe assumption, that even the population phobics aren't really so desperate for "space" as to build cities there.

Wildlife don't vote and don't pay taxes, so I really don't see that wildlife should get much place in the debate. Much wildlife seems to do okay, even without our "help."

Great, another loony.
It's surprising how many of you think the way you do because of religion, or is it..

 

[Myles]

Yawn. The Running-Out-Of-Resources argument has been largely discredited, long ago.​

Why? Space is more fun and easier to understand.

So you want to talk "resources?" I can do that as well. One huge problem with allowing "resources" to be used as an excuse for coercing population "control," is that implies that the government "owns" the resources, rather than the people themselves. (Why do liberals so often, not like to clutter their little minds with technical "details" as to why their stupid ideas can't possibly work?) Now if the government "owns" the resources, then isn't the government free to "manufacture scarcity" any time they like, to line the pockets of their corporate bigwig good-ol'-boy special interests or campaign contributor networks? At the expense of the hard-working American taxpayer, but of course.

Keep it simple. Just give us your views on water availability worldwide !

 

[Myles]

Great, another loony.
It's surprising how many of you think the way you do because of religion, or is it..

Lots of people are dim without having any obvious excuse.

 

[Enmos]

Lots of people are dim without having any obvious excuse.

True, but they ones that think they have an excuse are worse.

 

[Myles]

True, but they ones that think they have an excuse are worse.

I hadn't though of that. Perhaps they can be treated.

 

[Enmos]

I hadn't though of that. Perhaps they can be treated.

I doubt it..
However, maybe they can show how superior they are against an animal of our choice.

 

[Pronatalist]

Great, another loony.
It's surprising how many of you think the way you do because of religion, or is it..

And why is it "surprising" that a world with so many people, should want to put the needs of people first?

Does it take "religion" to get people to thinking smart? Rather than to do stupid stuff contrary to the "progress" of the naturally-growing human race?

"Earth First. We can mine the other planets later." —a bumper sticker

 

[Enmos]

And why is it "surprising" that a world with so many people, should want to put the needs of people first?

I didn't say I find it surprising that people think that way, I am long past that..
Read again.

Does it take "religion" to get people to thinking smart? Rather than to do stupid stuff contrary to the "progress" of the naturally-growing human race?

Smart ? Don't you think we should preserve the natural environment precisely for the good of humankind ?

"Earth First. We can mine the other planets later." —a bumper sticker

Is that your motto ?

 

[Pronatalist]

Not even water "shortages" should be able to hinder the natural increase of humans.​

Yawn. The Running-Out-Of-Resources argument has been largely discredited, long ago.​

Why? Space is more fun and easier to understand.

So you want to talk "resources?" I can do that as well. One huge problem with allowing "resources" to be used as an excuse for coercing population "control," is that implies that the government "owns" the resources, rather than the people themselves. (Why do liberals so often, not like to clutter their little minds with technical "details" as to why their stupid ideas can't possibly work?) Now if the government "owns" the resources, then isn't the government free to "manufacture scarcity" any time they like, to line the pockets of their corporate bigwig good-ol'-boy special interests or campaign contributor networks? At the expense of the hard-working American taxpayer, but of course.

Keep it simple. Just give us your views on water availability worldwide !

Well, with cities and towns becoming more and more numerous, and having so many more people than before, and the gaps in between them increasingly filling with people, water obviously is a growing need. So rivers are becoming less free running, more dammed up by people, people are drilling more wells, and they say that underground aquifers are dropping.

With there getting to be more and more human anuses in the world, naturally populating more densely together, waterways become more easily contaminated with human and animal wastes.

What's the answer to all of that? Nothing at all about that, means people can't go on have their precious darling babies. Humans don't really drink all that much water. And the cost of water treatment quite often is minimal compared to the cost of the infrastructure to deliver the water, so imposing water "conservation" measures are largely irrelevant. But humans use water for many other things, farming, washing cars, washing clothes watering lawns. The answer is to build more dams and water projects, pay attention to the many human needs and wants, build more ocean water desalination plants and the cheap energy facilities needed to power them, and more of the developing countries are going to have to get more serious about people getting indoor flush toilets within their homes and "modernizing" to modern public sanitation sewer systems. (People do have immune systems, so locals quite often can drink filty water and quite often not get sick, while visitors are told not to drink the water but find something cleaner to drink, say like soda.) The old ways of "primitive" living, don't work so well anymore with more countries natually reaching the "tipping point" of flipping from having multiple acres per person, to having multiple people per acre. I figure that India now has 3 people per 2 acres. And I read that the depopulation agenda isn't working so well in India, as there's "population competition" pressure for various rival groups to not allow themselves to become swamped by other multiplying groups of people. But more "modern" convenience living, like how people in the Western world and big cities already pretty much take for granted, works a lot better with such dense and vast human populations as seem to naturally be "engulfing" more and more of the world.

And it's not even necessary to have all the answers first. As we find human populations naturally spreading, and naturally densifying, quite often what needs to be done to better ACCOMODATE so many people, becomes increasingly apparent. As people naturally grow more numerous, any nearby river or undergroud aquifer, becomes the rather "obvious" source of water. Population already tends to much cluster along coastal areas, and those areas at least have access to ocean water, which can be desalinated, if they have money or some industry (i.e. oil in Saudi Arabia) by which to pay for the water treatments.

It shouldn't be surprising, that parents yearning for babies, are going to have a "disconnect" between water "shortages" and having more babies. Parents don't need shoddy excuses to deny them their God-given children, but rather, humans are highly ADAPTABLE, so that should be seen as a strength, and so we should pronatalistally be exploring, at least somewhat, how we may indeed deliberately populate the planet denser and denser with people, for the sakes of our own progeny, and for the good of the many.

Also, I think that more remote wilderness forest fires should be left to nature, free to grow in size naturally during droughts, free to burn mostly unchallenged during the Spring, some hanging over to become summertime wildfires that more quickly then spread, or soon fizzle on their own with the fickle weather, to cut down on excessive firefighting costs and concentrate firefighting resources to more populated areas where they are more needed. But with people coming to live seemingly "everywhere," there's less and less "wild" places where nature can "do its thing," and I welcome natural human population growth to eventually and gradually displace some of the "wild" places where wildfires are left to "run their course," like up in unpopulated Alaska or northern Canada or Siberia, and even the wilderness eventually becomes less "wild" and more "tamed" by humans. With more population forests get fragmented, firebreaks/roads/freeways and such are added. It takes a vaster and denser world population, to make "taming" more of nature, more cost-effective and beneficial to humans.

 

[Pronatalist]

If we want to truly understand population issues, then hadn't we try to understand better, why we so like to be so populous?​

And why is it "surprising" that a world with so many people, should want to put the needs of people first?

I didn't say I find it surprising that people think that way, I am long past that..
Read again.

But some people may still find it "surprising." But fully expect that a world of "burgeoning billions" should show a few, perhaps obvious, perhaps not-so-obvious, signs of human domination. I don't at all mind to see some new housing developments going up, as I imagine it's necessary to best accomodate our growing numbers of our own progeny, or at least to allow people their choice of where they want to live. I like to see such "constructive" changes as those. To live in a world that little changes or progresses, can seem a bit "dull." I would like to see more youthful and faster-expanding populations in American cities, something like that of the faster-growing, more pronatalist developing countries, but of course, without the accompanying poverty. Such could be naturally expected, of a more public pronatalist mindset that deliberately encourages large families everywhere that people might happen to live. I advocate more people being possibly ready to marry young, and people to not "space" their children, but to welcome the natural flow of human life unhindered. Not rhythm, not NFP, but welcoming our babies to come as they come, just as fast as our bodies want to make more babies. The "no method" method of "family planning," the most natural and pro-life of them all.

Does it take "religion" to get people to thinking smart? Rather than to do stupid stuff contrary to the "progress" of the naturally-growing human race?

Smart ? Don't you think we should preserve the natural environment precisely for the good of humankind ?

Not really. I'm not really an outdoor person. Sure, I like to go on a hike out in the woods once in a while. But that doesn't make me some greenie-weenie, nor some nature-worshipper. I more prefer the "natural" in our own bodies, where it would seem to most matter to us. Not directly polluting the body with nasty cancer stick cigarettes, no ugly tattooing inks, no bizarre body piercings, and no shoddy awkward unnatural contraceptive potions and poisons. Allowing the human reproductive system to function naturally proudly growing babies inside as they will come, just like any other system of the body. When I go on a hike, I always carpool with a group, as I never go to "get away from it all," but to meet people, and I see more scenery out car windows as a rider rather than a driver. I don't mind at all if hiking trails are crowded, I rather liked some lady in our group bringing her dog and taking her dog's leash off and letting him run around with us. I couldn't care about the difference so much of "pristine" untouched forests, or human-altered "plantation" forests. To me, forest is forest.

Even nature appears to prefer not the old quaint "balance" but the "new balance" of humans naturally growing more and more numerous. I want to see human deliberately make whatever adjustments appropriate to that. Building beautiful gleaming cities. Planting a few flowers in their yards if they like. We should deliberately make certain alterations to the world, to help humans enjoy being more vast and denser in numbers, more comfortably and safely. Not to trash our neighborhoods with ugly graffiti and trash, as if we don't even care about one another. Maybe we can't "control" our powerful primal reproductive urges so much as we like to imagine we can, so make the best of a wonderful situation.

In some magazine article, I read of some feminist author talking negative about how so many people in the developing countries supposedly breed. Ping! Ping! Ping!, she opines. A baby on a mother's back, another baby inside her belly, and another toddler following behind. How could anybody see that as "disgusting?" I see it as beautiful, as I want to see the already "huge" human race, loving each and every human life as immensely valuable and sacred, such that we would go on eagerly multiplying and welcoming all the more people to experience life. So the region is growing more dense people. So what? It's their right, and human reproduction is a primal powerful urge that most all humans naturally share. So why can't we use our "logic" to try to understand, why the human race really ought to eagerly further ENLARGE our numbers, as God and nature would obviously welcome us to and allow. Large families are still quite cool, because they allow more people to come alive and enjoy life. I find "birth control" highly unnatural and disgusting, so why not welcome "baby after baby" or Ping! Ping! Ping!, especially among those parents, who rather really do seem to prefer their "traditionally very large" families, in China, or wherever they may happen to live.

"Earth First. We can mine the other planets later." —a bumper sticker

Is that your motto ?

Not really. I don't want to mine just to mine, but because I need something. It's rather just sort of funny, and perhaps a bit more like how we ought to be thinking about favoring our neighbors, and trying to love thy neighbor as thyself. If so many people are going to need various resources, we had better mine them somewhere. On earth seems the obvious cheapest way, out in unpopulated areas, not digging caves under people's homes. But in the future or in sci-fi movies, maybe someday, mining asteroids will become attractive? Who knows?

Oh, and I forgot the other bumper sticker.

"I (heart) animals. They are delicious."

I sometimes like to joke with my little nephews, because I am a bit bothered with these movies and cartoons that too much make wild animals seem too much like people, confusing the little kids. When they watch the movie "Charlottes Web," I ask, "Where do they get to the part where they eat Wilber, the pig?" Or I tell people that "Bambi" belongs on my dinner plate.

I would prefer, rather than having to farm all that land, and doing all that digging for mining, that people have Star Trek-like "food replicators." Why mine resources, if we can simply re-order the molecules and "replicate" what we need? Wouldn't it be nice to not have to constantly buy stuff? But then, the "food replicator" doesn't seem to "help" cows much. Once we can "copy" a great steak, who needs cows anymore? Why deal with milk going sour, when I can "replicate" a new glass? So then we can finally get rid of most of the cows, and leave a few cows in zoos?

Some preacher was talking on the radio, about the promised New Jerusalem, created by God, not by human hands, that comes down from the sky in Revelation. Something about what an enormous city it would be, and all the people it would hold, and it would be clean, not polluting like how humans do. Something about how things that people make are imperfect, but how God creates perfect.

But until the promised endtimes, we obviously have to do something to get by. The world seems fairly sure to grow to at least 8 billion people, and India probably to at least 1.5 billion. That's more people, not less. Wouldn't it be better to do something to prepare to welcome them, rather than to irrationally fear "what must be?" Regardless of all the prattle about what the future may or may not be like, I would like to welcome the prospect of possibly having a large family, as I don't believe in humans using any means of "birth control," and I understand that quite many people feel likewise, for various "religious" and practical reasons. Some actually just like children or like being pregnant. All that is quite understandable, as most of us likely are the descendents of those of our ancestors, most into breeding babies. So should it be any wonder that as they say, "What populates the planet is extremely pleasurable?" God must have had some profound purpose to create us such.

 

[Sciencelovah]

I assume that Pronatalist is trying to say that this earth is not really unlimited in
resource, but because there are still many left unexplored and that human aren't using
their full potential to utilize the resource yet, there is no need to be worry.

To that extent I will agree. The survival of the human race depends on how fast they
can invest in securing the needs for the coming generation. With all the genetic engineered
food, ability of providing space in a vertical ways (building up), extract drinking water
from urine, and all other inventions, seems that the existing capacity is "unlimited".