Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Are the world's natural abundant raw resources, reserved only for the filthy rich?
Well it shouldn't be so much a count. Why all the anti-people obsession with numbers, anyway? Who says a human population can't be huge and immense, and yet people behave in logical and efficient ways. Hold doors open for strangers, throw all trash in trash cans, don't buy a bunk of cheap shoddy junk made in China, don't talk on cellphones while in the store checkout or rarely while driving, etc. By making just a few reasonable adaptations of the sort that people should want to make anyway, human populations can more easily and comfortably and safely, be all the vaster and denser, for the benefit of the populous many.
And since human numbers are rising, that's all the more reason not to obsess on numbers, as people have very good reasons for multiplying their numbers, that they likely would like respected.
Oh, the usually non-productive psychobabble about "overpopulation." The U.N., hostile to freedom and family values, decides to rig some "meeting" about population, and the rich white elites, tell the developing countries that they ought not to have so many children. Not making hardly any effort to understand other people's cultures or reasons. They fire back, but you Westerners use so much more resources than we do. And then somebody brings up the issues of coercion and abortion, and it just all turns into a shouting match of people pointing fingers, blaming most everybody but themselves. When the whole premise was wrong to begin with—humans aren't too numerous, and aren't becoming too numerous.
According to the lies and distortions of certain population phobics, it must be a virtue to be poor. Never mind the facts or evidence. Never mind the diseases spread by humans wastes contaminating drinking water. Aren't the poor among the worst polluters? Because they don't have enough options. They don't need condoms, they need to be getting flush toilets inside their homes. When the empty fields that people used to could go to defecate, become filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see, then there must be better means of proper public sanitation. A big problem in developing countries, is respiratory problems. From people huddling around millions of cooking fires in the cities. They burn wood, dung, trash, whatever they can find. Why should people have to breathe all that smoke? There's a much more efficient and cleaner way to cook food for their families. Gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens. Temperature is easily regulated, there's comparitively waste heating before or after, and much of the smoke is eliminated, or removed far from the populations by the electricity power plants far away. Refrigerators are also helpful for preserving food and using food more efficiently, to feed all the more people at lower cost.
"The poor developing countries should modernize and be more like us, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist
I detest some of the "us and them" mentality. We all share the same globe, that is gradually filling up with people. Why not work more together, in support of our common interests? I want to be free to enjoy having all the children I was meant to have, and I want the same for everybody else. Modernization brings many practical tools that can help human populations enjoy becoming vaster and denser, but also more comfortably and safely. As the world also grows more urban, and dense with people, what do big cities need to function properly? Well one big thing they need, is cheap and affordable energy to run them. So I am very much in favor of needed development, and some much needed expansions of the electrical grid capacity. And besides, electricity is said to be a "contraceptive" of sorts. What else is there to do in the dark, of some undeveloped villages, but to make more babies? I encourage that regardless, as lights and TV can be turned off, but at least with electricity, parent can turn on the lights at night, to change a baby's diaper.
Maybe more population is still a given. But more population + more poverty, is hardly the ideal combination. People need options, which wealth does tend to bring. The poorest people with the most children, hardly need to be cut off from access to needed resources. They too, should have weathertight homes, with modern heat and air conditioning, as much as reasonably possible. Why have people freezing to death in the winter, needlessly, or getting sick, because of all the cold-stress on their bodies, robbing them of needed sleep?
I support pronatalism, for one thing, a society that advocates additional people coming to life, then must also address other social justice issues, like do people need meaningful jobs that pay enough to support families? Do these people then have some expectation to be able to be connected to the information networks of the world, to have their say? TV, internet, telephone, etc. Maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to trample on people, rape countries of their resources without sharing some of the profits, or exploit people for cheap labor under horrible working conditions? But "family planning" allows such issues to be conveniently swept under the rug, the corrupt status quo defended, as just tossing condoms in people's faces, as if their children don't even matter, is like a bottle of "Dr. Good," some quack cure-all, that just magically solves everything.
Greater consumption and pollution are optional. People can choose to live more frugal, more intelligent lives. They don't just have to buy every piece of junk advertised on TV. One major problem in that area, is that people buy too much stuff, while saving far too little for the future or for emergencies. That makes them more fearful, and more reliant upon the government. They act more like slaves, and less like sovereign individuals. But of course, with greater wealth, may come some level of greater consumption. People with more money, might like to live in bigger houses. Bigger houses often require more energy to heat and cool them, and naturally sometimes tend to attract more stuff to fill them. If people choose good stuff, say like tools and such, they can enhance their skills and maybe make some money at it. Good stuff helps make good jobs for people. But I think poor-quality junk actually encourages wasteful consumption, because when it breaks or fails, then it needs replacing prematurely. And there are ways to mitigate pollution that should reduce quality of life or affordability of products, if not pushed to excess. Isn't there a saying that "pollution is just an untapped resource?" Or the result of incomplete technologies?
Did you mean rationalizing? Or rationing? If there must be rationing, I say we start with the rich. Jacking up gasoline prices, only hurts the working poor. The rich aren't going to use less. They can afford it. Jacking up prices of things that people need, aggravates the huge gap between the rich and poor, and is not fair. There should be little excuse for rationing, as that can be more a deliberate individual decision, not something to be imposed, and there's so many practical ways to increase supply, especially since in free markets, expanding supply does tend to enlarge profits, providing incentive not only for more supply, but more population to enlarge demand as well.
In that context, surely "awareness" will be construed by those pushing it, to mean coercion and deception against people freely having their children. We have too much scare tactics against families and children already. We need more friendly encouragement, towards people who especially may just naturally love children or nurture children well, to go ahead and let their families grow possibly quite large.
Of course I am quite aware that there may be some minor "costs" or "growing pains." Cities may have to get larger and closer together, to somehow absorb and welcome all the people to have some place to live. But these challenges should be faced eagerly and head-on, not as some irrational fear and loathing of what the future might supposedly bring. The developing world is growing so incredibly populous, that they are under increased pressure to modernize to better adapt to their naturally swelling numbers. Cities are growing bigger, so they should also be designed to be cleaner and safer, and more welcoming to the many people. I have long admitted to that, but stressed that sensible innovations that people want anyway, say like toilets, are what's needed, not condoms.
On some PBS program, I heard some remark that it's not smart to poop in your drinking water. Well yeah, but then like you say, it's not the numbers, it's the lack of proper modern facilities. Problems can be mitigated, without any unnatural unproductive effort to limit numbers, against the will of the many, many people.
There are many reasons why people have as many children as they do. Quite compelling actually. I agree with most all of them. I don't expect people to practice any "birth control," because humans weren't even designed for that.
"It's high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on, in an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
I like the old landmarks and traditions, where they are there for good reason and still useful. But some might try to say that we can't keep adding more and more people to the planet, and keep doing things the same old ways. I am inclined to agree. But I understand why world population grows and grows, and I want to see it free to go on expanding naturally. So look at the latter part then. What if we were to explore how differently, we might do things? What if there are new ways, that are better? I don't favor draconian non-solutions that people don't want, but the minor natural adaptations that people want anyway. If developing countries so much like to keep adding more and more people to their countries, that's wonderful, I love to see the beauty of the human race naturally "blossoming" in size for the greater good of the many. But then let them have their cars and homes and electricity and stuff that we enjoy. Let them create for themselves meaningful jobs. Question corporations that act like they have more rights than anybody else, and abuse their legal fiction of acting as a "person" to be the biggest person around. Let developing countries modernize, so that they all won't want to come here where we live. If our "modern" lifestyle is good enough for us, then why can't other people choose to live it as well?
Are the world's natural abundant raw resources, reserved only for the filthy rich?
Well it shouldn't be so much a count. Why all the anti-people obsession with numbers, anyway? Who says a human population can't be huge and immense, and yet people behave in logical and efficient ways. Hold doors open for strangers, throw all trash in trash cans, don't buy a bunk of cheap shoddy junk made in China, don't talk on cellphones while in the store checkout or rarely while driving, etc. By making just a few reasonable adaptations of the sort that people should want to make anyway, human populations can more easily and comfortably and safely, be all the vaster and denser, for the benefit of the populous many.
And since human numbers are rising, that's all the more reason not to obsess on numbers, as people have very good reasons for multiplying their numbers, that they likely would like respected.
Oh, the usually non-productive psychobabble about "overpopulation." The U.N., hostile to freedom and family values, decides to rig some "meeting" about population, and the rich white elites, tell the developing countries that they ought not to have so many children. Not making hardly any effort to understand other people's cultures or reasons. They fire back, but you Westerners use so much more resources than we do. And then somebody brings up the issues of coercion and abortion, and it just all turns into a shouting match of people pointing fingers, blaming most everybody but themselves. When the whole premise was wrong to begin with—humans aren't too numerous, and aren't becoming too numerous.
According to the lies and distortions of certain population phobics, it must be a virtue to be poor. Never mind the facts or evidence. Never mind the diseases spread by humans wastes contaminating drinking water. Aren't the poor among the worst polluters? Because they don't have enough options. They don't need condoms, they need to be getting flush toilets inside their homes. When the empty fields that people used to could go to defecate, become filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see, then there must be better means of proper public sanitation. A big problem in developing countries, is respiratory problems. From people huddling around millions of cooking fires in the cities. They burn wood, dung, trash, whatever they can find. Why should people have to breathe all that smoke? There's a much more efficient and cleaner way to cook food for their families. Gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens. Temperature is easily regulated, there's comparitively waste heating before or after, and much of the smoke is eliminated, or removed far from the populations by the electricity power plants far away. Refrigerators are also helpful for preserving food and using food more efficiently, to feed all the more people at lower cost.
"The poor developing countries should modernize and be more like us, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist
I detest some of the "us and them" mentality. We all share the same globe, that is gradually filling up with people. Why not work more together, in support of our common interests? I want to be free to enjoy having all the children I was meant to have, and I want the same for everybody else. Modernization brings many practical tools that can help human populations enjoy becoming vaster and denser, but also more comfortably and safely. As the world also grows more urban, and dense with people, what do big cities need to function properly? Well one big thing they need, is cheap and affordable energy to run them. So I am very much in favor of needed development, and some much needed expansions of the electrical grid capacity. And besides, electricity is said to be a "contraceptive" of sorts. What else is there to do in the dark, of some undeveloped villages, but to make more babies? I encourage that regardless, as lights and TV can be turned off, but at least with electricity, parent can turn on the lights at night, to change a baby's diaper.
Maybe more population is still a given. But more population + more poverty, is hardly the ideal combination. People need options, which wealth does tend to bring. The poorest people with the most children, hardly need to be cut off from access to needed resources. They too, should have weathertight homes, with modern heat and air conditioning, as much as reasonably possible. Why have people freezing to death in the winter, needlessly, or getting sick, because of all the cold-stress on their bodies, robbing them of needed sleep?
I support pronatalism, for one thing, a society that advocates additional people coming to life, then must also address other social justice issues, like do people need meaningful jobs that pay enough to support families? Do these people then have some expectation to be able to be connected to the information networks of the world, to have their say? TV, internet, telephone, etc. Maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to trample on people, rape countries of their resources without sharing some of the profits, or exploit people for cheap labor under horrible working conditions? But "family planning" allows such issues to be conveniently swept under the rug, the corrupt status quo defended, as just tossing condoms in people's faces, as if their children don't even matter, is like a bottle of "Dr. Good," some quack cure-all, that just magically solves everything.
Greater consumption and pollution are optional. People can choose to live more frugal, more intelligent lives. They don't just have to buy every piece of junk advertised on TV. One major problem in that area, is that people buy too much stuff, while saving far too little for the future or for emergencies. That makes them more fearful, and more reliant upon the government. They act more like slaves, and less like sovereign individuals. But of course, with greater wealth, may come some level of greater consumption. People with more money, might like to live in bigger houses. Bigger houses often require more energy to heat and cool them, and naturally sometimes tend to attract more stuff to fill them. If people choose good stuff, say like tools and such, they can enhance their skills and maybe make some money at it. Good stuff helps make good jobs for people. But I think poor-quality junk actually encourages wasteful consumption, because when it breaks or fails, then it needs replacing prematurely. And there are ways to mitigate pollution that should reduce quality of life or affordability of products, if not pushed to excess. Isn't there a saying that "pollution is just an untapped resource?" Or the result of incomplete technologies?
Did you mean rationalizing? Or rationing? If there must be rationing, I say we start with the rich. Jacking up gasoline prices, only hurts the working poor. The rich aren't going to use less. They can afford it. Jacking up prices of things that people need, aggravates the huge gap between the rich and poor, and is not fair. There should be little excuse for rationing, as that can be more a deliberate individual decision, not something to be imposed, and there's so many practical ways to increase supply, especially since in free markets, expanding supply does tend to enlarge profits, providing incentive not only for more supply, but more population to enlarge demand as well.
In that context, surely "awareness" will be construed by those pushing it, to mean coercion and deception against people freely having their children. We have too much scare tactics against families and children already. We need more friendly encouragement, towards people who especially may just naturally love children or nurture children well, to go ahead and let their families grow possibly quite large.
Of course I am quite aware that there may be some minor "costs" or "growing pains." Cities may have to get larger and closer together, to somehow absorb and welcome all the people to have some place to live. But these challenges should be faced eagerly and head-on, not as some irrational fear and loathing of what the future might supposedly bring. The developing world is growing so incredibly populous, that they are under increased pressure to modernize to better adapt to their naturally swelling numbers. Cities are growing bigger, so they should also be designed to be cleaner and safer, and more welcoming to the many people. I have long admitted to that, but stressed that sensible innovations that people want anyway, say like toilets, are what's needed, not condoms.
On some PBS program, I heard some remark that it's not smart to poop in your drinking water. Well yeah, but then like you say, it's not the numbers, it's the lack of proper modern facilities. Problems can be mitigated, without any unnatural unproductive effort to limit numbers, against the will of the many, many people.
There are many reasons why people have as many children as they do. Quite compelling actually. I agree with most all of them. I don't expect people to practice any "birth control," because humans weren't even designed for that.
"It's high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on, in an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
I like the old landmarks and traditions, where they are there for good reason and still useful. But some might try to say that we can't keep adding more and more people to the planet, and keep doing things the same old ways. I am inclined to agree. But I understand why world population grows and grows, and I want to see it free to go on expanding naturally. So look at the latter part then. What if we were to explore how differently, we might do things? What if there are new ways, that are better? I don't favor draconian non-solutions that people don't want, but the minor natural adaptations that people want anyway. If developing countries so much like to keep adding more and more people to their countries, that's wonderful, I love to see the beauty of the human race naturally "blossoming" in size for the greater good of the many. But then let them have their cars and homes and electricity and stuff that we enjoy. Let them create for themselves meaningful jobs. Question corporations that act like they have more rights than anybody else, and abuse their legal fiction of acting as a "person" to be the biggest person around. Let developing countries modernize, so that they all won't want to come here where we live. If our "modern" lifestyle is good enough for us, then why can't other people choose to live it as well?
Last edited: