A Viable and Ethical solution to overpopulation
- Thread starter Origen
- Start date
No. But didn't we already answer it here?
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77966
If it is viable it is not ethical, if it is ethical it is not viable...
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77966
If it is viable it is not ethical, if it is ethical it is not viable...
Yes, I posted it here for the merely for the ethical aspect, and since it has been a long time prior to my last 3 threads that I have posted anything here I was unaware that people posted in several different aspects of science. I just thought of reaching more people over the ethics of the subject here.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Yeah, welcome human populations to grow naturally, and ADAPT.
How can people go on enjoying having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Populate denser and more efficiently. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.
Welcome the natural flow of human life to flow unhindered.
How can people go on enjoying having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Populate denser and more efficiently. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.
Welcome the natural flow of human life to flow unhindered.
"Is there a Viable and Ethical way to control overpopulation?"
This question for me is the same as asking if there is a viable and ethical procedure to end starvation and violence.
I think the answer may only be attainable thru individual inquiry. Perhaps there exists a hive mind whose only purpose is to churn out workers/soldiers and babymakers as fast and as many as the environment will sustain and as such individual enquiry amounts to vain and foolish rallys against the establishment. And yet all the advancements of civilisation have been the product of individual enquiry.
This question for me is the same as asking if there is a viable and ethical procedure to end starvation and violence.
I think the answer may only be attainable thru individual inquiry. Perhaps there exists a hive mind whose only purpose is to churn out workers/soldiers and babymakers as fast and as many as the environment will sustain and as such individual enquiry amounts to vain and foolish rallys against the establishment. And yet all the advancements of civilisation have been the product of individual enquiry.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Is there a viable and ethical way, to populate the planet naturally, more densely?
Is there a viable and ethical way, to populate the planet naturally, more densely?
There is much room in an increasingly populous world, for inviduality and the rights (and responsibilities) of the individual. In fact, the dignity and worth of each and every person, is a major reason to be pronatalist, welcoming human populations to grow naturally, unhindered, all around the world, in order to allow for such individual concerns, like people's natural yearnings for children.
But you may notice, that I don't really focus so much on the excessive interpretation of "individual" rights, as to why humans ought to go on procreating more people. Having a "large" family, perhaps all the more so, in a modern and increasingly populous world, obviously affects other people. So it's not really so much a "private" matter, but our reproductive activities are a very "public" matter. That doesn't at all mean that the public can in any way control other people's natural family growth, but they do have some small place to make their comments, and to look for ways to be more pro-life. In the public sense, encouraging large families, serves the greater good of the many, as it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts, to seek our multiplication and natural increase of our kind. So it's in everybody's interests, and not just that of the most prolific breeders.
Now to the establishment, there are numerous ways to view people, that may tend to encourage the prolific breeding of still more people. More people is more profits, more customers, more workers to exploit and underpay, more future taxpayers, etc. But there's also the atruistic and positive philosophical side to that. More people is more people around, to experience life. More people, who might invent very useful things or come up with better ways of doing things. More people is probably required, to better respect people's God-given right (and duty) to procreate. And reproducing children, gives the people something to do, to help keep them out of trouble.
So quite often, "the establishment" may appear to want the people to breed more naturally or prolifically, because they try to do as they should, and give the people, what the people seem to want. And often even the establishment, may consider the natural enlargement of the human race, a completely natural process that is to be expected.
So it's not just in "the hive mind" to church out workers and soldiers and babymakers nearly as fast as possible, but also in our genes, in our practical reasons, and in our religions as well. It's completely natural, in keeping with how God designed the world, for some profound reason. A natural function of human life, is to create more human life. And so we ought to be more grateful that God allows the human race to become so incredibly populous, rather than excessively whining about "what must be," needlessly.
Is there a viable and ethical way, to populate the planet naturally, more densely?
There is much room in an increasingly populous world, for inviduality and the rights (and responsibilities) of the individual. In fact, the dignity and worth of each and every person, is a major reason to be pronatalist, welcoming human populations to grow naturally, unhindered, all around the world, in order to allow for such individual concerns, like people's natural yearnings for children.
But you may notice, that I don't really focus so much on the excessive interpretation of "individual" rights, as to why humans ought to go on procreating more people. Having a "large" family, perhaps all the more so, in a modern and increasingly populous world, obviously affects other people. So it's not really so much a "private" matter, but our reproductive activities are a very "public" matter. That doesn't at all mean that the public can in any way control other people's natural family growth, but they do have some small place to make their comments, and to look for ways to be more pro-life. In the public sense, encouraging large families, serves the greater good of the many, as it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts, to seek our multiplication and natural increase of our kind. So it's in everybody's interests, and not just that of the most prolific breeders.
Now to the establishment, there are numerous ways to view people, that may tend to encourage the prolific breeding of still more people. More people is more profits, more customers, more workers to exploit and underpay, more future taxpayers, etc. But there's also the atruistic and positive philosophical side to that. More people is more people around, to experience life. More people, who might invent very useful things or come up with better ways of doing things. More people is probably required, to better respect people's God-given right (and duty) to procreate. And reproducing children, gives the people something to do, to help keep them out of trouble.
So quite often, "the establishment" may appear to want the people to breed more naturally or prolifically, because they try to do as they should, and give the people, what the people seem to want. And often even the establishment, may consider the natural enlargement of the human race, a completely natural process that is to be expected.
So it's not just in "the hive mind" to church out workers and soldiers and babymakers nearly as fast as possible, but also in our genes, in our practical reasons, and in our religions as well. It's completely natural, in keeping with how God designed the world, for some profound reason. A natural function of human life, is to create more human life. And so we ought to be more grateful that God allows the human race to become so incredibly populous, rather than excessively whining about "what must be," needlessly.
Last edited:
Education, prosperity, female empowerment, and birth control
Good points Pronatalist. "It's completely natural, in keeping with how God designed the world,"-
Sometimes it seems one-sided to me as if many pitfalls are placed in front of mankind as hurdles to a privileged class.
There are hurdles to the privileged corner office with a view.
Sometimes it seems one-sided to me as if many pitfalls are placed in front of mankind as hurdles to a privileged class.
There are hurdles to the privileged corner office with a view.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Glad to see that somebody else, sees the light.
Glad to see that somebody else, sees the light.
And yet the "priviledged" can still enjoy all their privilege and wealth, if only they can learn that they must somehow live in an increasingly "crowded" world. If we can't properly share in some wealth and priviledge, at least allow us our precious darling children, so that life can at least be bearable.
Does it ever occur to people "educated way beyond their intelligence," that there might actually be many valid reasons, why we don't want to bother to "control" our natural birthrates? Some people still think that children are valuable and wondrous, so why not "the more the merrier?"
Some guy at the last Walk For Life I went to, said that they have 4 children, and they don't use any birth control. There's all sorts of practical reasons why people prefer to let their children come naturally. Then they don't have to "decide" how many children to have, nor fight over differing preferred numbers. Because "birth control" is awkward and has side-effects. Because they love children, came from a large family, or are open to the prospect. Because condoms don't grow on trees, but food does. Because sex feels better and is more erotic, natural and real and procreative. Etc.
And because a naturally growing world of people, helps spur on innovation and keep things curious and interesting, rather than dull and more cynical.
Glad to see that somebody else, sees the light.
And yet the "priviledged" can still enjoy all their privilege and wealth, if only they can learn that they must somehow live in an increasingly "crowded" world. If we can't properly share in some wealth and priviledge, at least allow us our precious darling children, so that life can at least be bearable.
Does it ever occur to people "educated way beyond their intelligence," that there might actually be many valid reasons, why we don't want to bother to "control" our natural birthrates? Some people still think that children are valuable and wondrous, so why not "the more the merrier?"
Some guy at the last Walk For Life I went to, said that they have 4 children, and they don't use any birth control. There's all sorts of practical reasons why people prefer to let their children come naturally. Then they don't have to "decide" how many children to have, nor fight over differing preferred numbers. Because "birth control" is awkward and has side-effects. Because they love children, came from a large family, or are open to the prospect. Because condoms don't grow on trees, but food does. Because sex feels better and is more erotic, natural and real and procreative. Etc.
And because a naturally growing world of people, helps spur on innovation and keep things curious and interesting, rather than dull and more cynical.
There is a flaw in your reasoning, the rich have fewer children than the poor.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Nope. My pronatalist views are very carefully reasoned, as I am no new amateur to this controversy.
Are you so sure that's a flaw? Maybe that's poetic justice or something? Maybe the "rich" aren't so rich as they think?
Anyway, the "fix" should be obvious. Why don't the rich simply have more children?
You would think the rich would have the most children of all, but the rich seem to find the most selfish excuses to not have children, showing society that we have our priorities all mixed up. The more money people have, the less able they seem to be, to afford children. That's just wrong.
And so what do the rich try to do? Steal away the children of the poor? Dump crates of condoms on the poor people's little shacks? Steal away the poor people's "only wealth?" Their precious darling children.
Poverty is hardly a heretity condition. It's the fault of economies purposely designed to cater to the rich, but not to serve the people in general. Somehow, it's not quite fair, that most every major economic decision is decided by filthy rich people, who have long since forgotten what life is like in the real world of the working poor.
BTW, now that you mention it, I might as well get into an annoying little acknowledged flaw in the magical "demographic transition" theory. Strangely, according to it, as people gain wealth, they just magically don't want many children anymore. Never mind all the underlying contraceptive peddling, trying to manufacture an "unmet need" for contraceptives, that scarcely existed among the more innocent poor before. But as I read on some website, there's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. Anyway, back to the flaw. Supposedly, what if the world is growing "too crowded," for everybody to get the wealth for the magical "demographic transition" to even work? Could we then be descending into some lurking "demographic entrapment," where many countries get stuck with rapidly expanding human populations coelescing naturally into monstrous supercities teeming with people? Oh, they can't mention that fear so much in "polite circles" because charges of pushing abortion and racism would soon be launched, as it's soon discovered that these underdeveloped countries are largely populated by—people conveniently of a different skin color. Oh but I can mention it, because I seek to expose the evil of these Nazi-holder eugenics pushers.
But then I never much bought into the "demographic transition" theory anyway. Here's my take on the matter:
"The poor developing countries should modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist
See, I promote "globalism" in the positive human-beneficial sense, not the "let's take over the world," evil globalist cabal sense. Let the world population naturally populate itself more densely into itself, so that all the more people may experience life.
Are you so sure that's a flaw? Maybe that's poetic justice or something? Maybe the "rich" aren't so rich as they think?
Anyway, the "fix" should be obvious. Why don't the rich simply have more children?
You would think the rich would have the most children of all, but the rich seem to find the most selfish excuses to not have children, showing society that we have our priorities all mixed up. The more money people have, the less able they seem to be, to afford children. That's just wrong.
And so what do the rich try to do? Steal away the children of the poor? Dump crates of condoms on the poor people's little shacks? Steal away the poor people's "only wealth?" Their precious darling children.
Poverty is hardly a heretity condition. It's the fault of economies purposely designed to cater to the rich, but not to serve the people in general. Somehow, it's not quite fair, that most every major economic decision is decided by filthy rich people, who have long since forgotten what life is like in the real world of the working poor.
BTW, now that you mention it, I might as well get into an annoying little acknowledged flaw in the magical "demographic transition" theory. Strangely, according to it, as people gain wealth, they just magically don't want many children anymore. Never mind all the underlying contraceptive peddling, trying to manufacture an "unmet need" for contraceptives, that scarcely existed among the more innocent poor before. But as I read on some website, there's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. Anyway, back to the flaw. Supposedly, what if the world is growing "too crowded," for everybody to get the wealth for the magical "demographic transition" to even work? Could we then be descending into some lurking "demographic entrapment," where many countries get stuck with rapidly expanding human populations coelescing naturally into monstrous supercities teeming with people? Oh, they can't mention that fear so much in "polite circles" because charges of pushing abortion and racism would soon be launched, as it's soon discovered that these underdeveloped countries are largely populated by—people conveniently of a different skin color. Oh but I can mention it, because I seek to expose the evil of these Nazi-holder eugenics pushers.
But then I never much bought into the "demographic transition" theory anyway. Here's my take on the matter:
"The poor developing countries should modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist
See, I promote "globalism" in the positive human-beneficial sense, not the "let's take over the world," evil globalist cabal sense. Let the world population naturally populate itself more densely into itself, so that all the more people may experience life.
'Ethically' then, overpopulation doesn't exist except for those who, for some reason or another, desire to live in a less populated world.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Want a less populated world? Whoops! Too late for that now.
Yeah, pretty much. But then vague feelings of supposed crowding, don't make for a "scientific" discussion about "overpopulation."
There's now billions of fertile human birth canal holes from which babies can emerge, at most any time. I believe the flow of human life should be natural, no awkward anti-life effort at "birth control" for all couples who can find suitable mates and marry. Around 40 or so, sexually-mature birth canals per square mile of land now, on average. You would think that a less populated world, would seem a bit unrealistic, to the educated? A population situation not even condusive to "control" (and never was, BTW), and so why even bother, against the wishes of the people? By allowing human population density to rise naturally, all the more people may experience life.
People really have no right or rationale for prefering a less populated world, because even their own birth helped swell the world population, so calling for population "control" seems quite hypocritical to me, unless they are "volunteering" to reduce population size by ceasing to live? Didn't think so.
You can't "have your cake and eat it too," they say. People don't want to be told how many children they can have. Fine. I agree. Then don't whine when the human population size naturally manages to rise a bit more.
Look on the bright side though. Perhaps any prospect of another "Gilligan's Island" is fading, as are there all that many islands left, that a group of people could live on for years, without being discovered by other people? Now they might wash up on shore, to find 100 people with cellular (or satelite) phones?
I am a natural introvert. But that doesn't stop me from welcoming the huge human herd, to swell naturally, in other places other than in my yard. Of course I don't mind filling my home, with my own children, and maybe even my children's children, especially if their stay is but "temporary." Actually, I think my children could build themselves a house in my back yard. What a great excuse to have less grass to mow.
By the next quote I think you are referring to the 'Quality' of life we would like to provide for our children...
City-dwellers don't have an aversion to population other than the concern of starvation.
I think Chicago and New York would be happy to exist in space as long as they had ample supply of pseudo-ham (as good as if not better than the real thing) and the vacated space would provide that much more arable land for production.
As someone else mentioned (I think) natural selection is prone to favor those who are satisfied with cabbage+beans and that's the rub, I think, it's not so much a question of "The masses face starvation we have to get rid of them" but a question of logistics as an element in a search for an ethical treatment of our neighbors that we can live with.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Euthanasia- Voluntary only.
And yes, we have to have birth control policies, with close monitoring of trends to ensure roughly equal male:female ratios.
It is a bit slack to people who want siblings though, I suppose the generation might be more spoilt than the last.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
In order for our children to have a "quality of life," doesn't it help, to actually have children?
No, I am referring to these "educated beyond their intelligence" morons, who feign concern that we "might" be getting "overpopulated," if they don't happen to live miles from their nearest neighbors, or if the world population total is too large to fit into their tiny little calculator readouts, or into their tiny little minds. To which I would say they need a better standard of measure, than vague feelings, to tell us that magically our children shouldn't even matter anymore, before they make their stupid objections to filling the planet with even more people.
You can't really have so much "quality of life," without sanctity of life and respect for human life, and then "quality" and quantity of human life, sort of go hand-in-hand, hard to have one, without the other.
Sure they do. The population phobics see a place in the world, for all their buddies, and their relatives, and people they know, but strangely, not for the people they don't know, especially those prolific breeders, conveniently of a different skin color, out in those developing (backwards?) nations where "birth control" generally isn't used (due to superstition?, or don't know any better?, because they are "uneducated" supposedly).
In fact, the more food people have in their bellies, and the bigger their mansion/houses, the more they like to worry about such fashionable fads as "overpopulation" it seems. As if the more they have, the more they feel "guilty" that somebody's just going to take it away from them, even though so many of the poor people of the world, don't even want their mansions or all their money, so much, as to just go on having their own children. Anyway, if that be the case, why can't they just keep their toxic "guilt," to themselves?
But sure, many city dwellers probably don't much care or worry how "out of hand" the growing human population may get, just so long as there's peace, and they can get their food. That's why they live in the city, right, they like being around all those people, or the excitement, or the jobs and shopping malls, or something?
Food is food. I really don't care so much what I eat, as long as I can easily afford it, and it tastes good. What do you mean pseudo-ham? Spam? A mixture of pork and who knows what all? I eat real meat, and not the silly veggie-burgers and such.
Or baked beans, or whatever I could get a good deal on. Some convenient and microwavable. Of course feed the masses. Let/encourage them to breed. So much cleaner and tidy than burying all the corpses. Have people no heart?
Most neighbors are easy to live with, problem is, do we even want to know our neighbors anymore? Do we even want to know them? Everybody's so busy, nobody just sits on their porches, we can't "just talk" to our neighbors much anymore?
Cities can be bigger and bigger, if only we can find good leaders to run them, and not just jack up our taxes.
When will people wake up and see things how they are? Nature doesn't object to the natural proliferation of people, nature seems to favor it. So why aren't we more pronatalist and positive about what apparently benefits so many people? Why aren't we more positive, about why people should go on enjoying having, their precious darling babies? Why are we so full of false modern "education," and have so little of the old "common sense?"
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
As world population naturally grows, we get more used to it, and ADAPT.
If you want roughtly equal male/female ratios, that's best achieved, by people reproducing naturally, without shoddy, awkward, anti-family "birth control." If people are encouraged to have all the children they want, or "all the children God gives," then there's little reason for "sex selection" or abortions, or just trying to get a boy.
"Birth control" is almost like the ultimate slavery. Why should people want to be "controlled?" What of the virtues of self-control? What of the virtues of large families? Children growing up in large families, better conditions them to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. Who's going to be bothered by the "crowds" of the world, if they grew up in their own family "crowd?" Good families do tend sometimes to be large, and people can still be quite caring and give their children special attention, even if there be many children.
I don't believe in "earth control." I saw the term in some silly stupid book, "50 Ways to Save the Earth." Under the heading "Earth Control," it said that stupid nonsense about by having 2 children or less, we supposedly help "stabilize" (stagnate) the growing world population. Well that's a reason to have a large family then. I don't want to help stagnate and hold back, the naturally growing human population. I don't believe humans should "control" everything of nature. Shouldn't a few aspects of nature, at least those that benefit man, remain a bit "wild?" So we don't have to control every forest fire out in remote unpopulated wilderness, and we need not bother to try to control our natural birthrates. Sometimes just let nature take its course, as nature's generally not "out to get us" anyway.
If there is to be any government population policies, they should always be respectful of the people and their yearnings to have children, and so always be pronatalist. Encouraging people to pair up and form stable marriages, and welcome them to push out their babies naturally, without ever having to resort to any unnatural means of shoddy "birth control" methods to tamper with or poison the natural function of the vital human reproductive system. As the cohorts of women of childbearing age naturally swell throughout much of the world, welcome them to pair up and marry, and enjoy reproducing more children, as well.
As when you honestly consider the powerful reproductive urges that most humans continually feel, and all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, it all adds up into a global goal and nature desire to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many. So I have long advocated large families worldwide, so that far more people may live.
So since this is more a natural universal goal, to enlarge the entire human race, I always consider it good news to hear of The Philippines, or India, or Indonesia, or any place, to be naturally densifying with people. By letting their populations naturally grow larger and denser, more people then can fit onto the planet. I of course, like to hear of the U.S., gradually growing closer to ourselves becoming perhaps someday, another country "population billionaire." In a beautifully "blossoming" world with ever more people, surely there ought to be more of "us" as well.
I think one has to consider carefully the terminology used; overpopulation is not simply a count of human individuals.
consider that people in advanced nations are consuming, wasting and causing damage to environment in proportions that are quite incomparable to other nations.
historically the birth rate has fallen with modern advancing societies, but greater consumption and pollution was the result of that too.
rationalizing our resources fairly, is an approach to secure these for current and future generations.
insuring that population increase goes with awareness of the cost involved (personal and collective), and the opportunities that lay ahead, is a must.
birth control for example has little meaning to individuals in a society that relies on manual labor..
consider that people in advanced nations are consuming, wasting and causing damage to environment in proportions that are quite incomparable to other nations.
historically the birth rate has fallen with modern advancing societies, but greater consumption and pollution was the result of that too.
rationalizing our resources fairly, is an approach to secure these for current and future generations.
insuring that population increase goes with awareness of the cost involved (personal and collective), and the opportunities that lay ahead, is a must.
birth control for example has little meaning to individuals in a society that relies on manual labor..
That's an excellent point. Even when the rich or middle class have fewer children, they also live much less sustainably than poor families in the less developed world.
Equality and justice for all, never been tried before, so why not?