Re: Re: If there weren't so many people on the planet, how could you and I be here?
Originally posted by Repo Man
No, the Universe does not care if humans last for another ten millennia, or another ten years. We have our fate in our own hands. We can decide to live in harmony, with numbers that we can reasonably support while allowing the other life forms on this planet a chance to exist. Or we can breed ourselves out of control, until we destroy ourselves in a war for natural resources.
But who do you suppose should do the "controlling?" Politicians? With billions of women now of childbearing age, is there really much potential of "control?" Isn't it a little late for "family planning?" Shouldn't it be in the hands of parents? Or better yet, God? And why should we worry about people breeding "out of control" when more and more people would want to live anyway?, which should be the #1 population concern, and a worthy goal to promote. Let the baby booms persist or spread, because how else could all those precious children, or fellow humans much like us, be born?
Originally posted by Repo Man
Sexual pleasure is no accident, it is an obvious outcome of evolution. From an evolutionary standpoint, reproduction is a lifeforms most important duty. All we really are are genes trying to make more genes, really no better than viruses.
An evolutionary viewpoint isn't only false, but a not very good explanation of the miracle of life.
Even as you claim, shouldn't people "pass on their genes," for the good of "the many," and so more and more people can live too? Now if there was no sentience, or conscience involved, then you could write it off as a mere gene replication thing. Viruses don't think or care about anything. Viruses are irrelevant.
But parents do find procreation a very fulfilling experience. Much of people's lives is much about caring for and loving their children. I think God makes human babies helpless for a reason, something related to humans being social creatures, in need of the company of other, and of touch, and of being held and loved.
Originally posted by Repo Man
You've not once touched on the issue of the extinction of many plant and animal species that is being caused by human overcrowding. I suppose your egocentric viewpoint supposes that these lifeforms are irrelevant?
And why do you suppose that is? Why would I not rant about extinction of plants and animals? Because it isn't as big a deal as the enviro wackos make it out to be. Almost everywhere I look, I see trees, grass, plants, flowers, squirrels, bunny rabbits, bugs. Where is all this "extinction?" Did you know that they count the "extinction" of species that haven't even been discovered yet? Isn't that a little ... fraudulent? Sort of like just making up a story?
The Bible says that the creatures reproduce after their "kind." Not their "species." Why is the state of the teaching of biology so sorry that people don't know anything about the difference? "Species" go into and out of existence all the time, as they are merely variations of kinds. There weren't 2 collies on Noah's Ark. There were 2 dogs. 2 of each "kind." So most all of those "extinct" "species" would soon be seen again, if people just knew how to rebreed them.
While I don't suppose other lifeforms are totally irrelevant, shouldn't I care more about humans than snail darters, or whatever irrelevant species that few people have heard of? Shouldn't humans put humans first? Do those other species pay taxes? Do those other species vote? Do they even talk to tell us what they might supposedly "want?" Perhaps they don't "want" much of anything, because they can't think on that level, like humans can. Humans like being numerous. Animals probably wouldn't care, because they don't think much about having offspring, or about the future, and have no idea what their total population is, or where all the boundaries of wilderness areas would be.
If humans were overcrowded, shouldn't we be encouraging the construction of more housing, and not worrying about a bunch of plants and animals that probably aren't even "endangered" to begin with, and secondly don't even care about the situation? Does the grass care if we mow it? Does a fly care if it is eaten by a frog? Probably not, because insects appear to be all instinct. I haven't seen any personality in some dumb bug that wanders or invades its way into my home. Sometimes I just squash them, sometimes I toss them out the door. They just wandered in or got lost from their natural habitat. If I toss them out, they probably won't be back. Does a tree care if it is cut down to make lumber to build houses? Perhaps becoming a house, is a tree's form of "heaven," if that makes any sense. Finally the tree has arrived at its final purpose. And if I lived in "overcrowded" conditions, wouldn't I still want to live? Wouldn't children still want to be born?
Originally posted by Repo Man
I like the world as it is, and millions agree with me. We all know that human population growth has to stop at some point. The real question is, will it be planned, or simply happen in the most tragic way possible?
Why? Are you a nature worshipper? The world has too much corruption. People have to work too much. The world is in a fallen, sinful state. The world isn't what it should be. Sure there are nice aspects of the world, but it is in sorry shape, not because of whatever imagined "overpopulation" nonsense, but because of man's sin, and no longer living in the paradise of the Garden of Eden. The world is too cold. The world is too hot. The world is too windy. The world is too humid. The world is too dry. The air is too stagnant. We get hungry and tired. We get selfish and cranky. This isn't heaven, and not quite how it should be.
So we can't have infinite population on a finite planet? Well, duh? But the population growth doesn't have to stop within our lifetimes, nor that of our children. It is to go on until the Lord Jesus Christ comes back as Kings of Kings, or until we get to heaven (or hell), or something like that. So what point does human population have to stop at? It's hard to say. But cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is ample room for massive population increase of humans. Cities could grow in 3 dimensions to hold all the people, if ever need be. They can grow inward. They can infill unused land, and populate it more densely. Cities can grow outward, expanding into the countryside, growing bigger, and forming more cities and towns, and grow closer together, filling more and more of the land with people and housing. Cities can also grow upwards into highrises and skyscrapers. People can live above and below their neighbors. The world has enough land to house around a trillion people, just on the ground level, filling much of the land with housing.
I like people having the freedom to enjoy having their children and to live where they want so I don't favor any cap on world population size, nor any population "control."
Why put so much faith in gloom and doom Malthusism rather than God? Food supplies have improved. Obesity is a growing problem, even in backwards, communist China. Human lifespan has increased. Wealth has increased. Technology has increased. Modern conveniences have increased.
The most tragic way possible? Are you always such a pessimist? Maybe we outgrow the planet, and colonize other planets? The more humans there are, the more we alter our environment to support more humans. It's a vicious, self-reinforcing circle that benefits humans. It seems to work pretty well sometimes. In the process we become less "overpopulated" as we remove any possible restraints on our numbers. More mouths to feed = more food produced. More proper sanitation, better medical care and vaccines = less disease and longer lifespan as human populations grow denser.
Perhaps "the most tragic way possible" is sort of along the lines that parents stop loving their children, don't bother to have them, and our society self-destructs in some abortion "culture of death," that encourages crime and abuse, since the value of human life is assumed to be no big deal? It's the anti-human population pessimists who really advocate "the most tragic way possible," as their philosophies can't possibly work. When we find out how few people can exist in their imaginary utopias, and that no dissenters or people like me who ask too many questions, can be tolerated, we have to say we want no part of their unworkable utopias. When we refuse to do much of anything to accomodate our fellow man, we can't possibly get rid of enough people to solve all the problems. I have read all the Bible, and it seems that as soon as there were 4 people on the earth, Cain murdered Abel. So is 4 people "too many" for a workable world population? Well I don't think many people would agree to that? Especially if I find out that I don't get to be one of the 4.
Originally posted by Repo Man
There have never before been so many people on the planet, so we have no history to help guide us.
Yes there is. Humans have multiplied, generally without the use of any means of anti-life "birth control" throughout all of history. And even though there are more people than ever before, we should still favor large families and welcome our fellow humans to live too. At most any point in history, it could be said that "never before has there been so many people on the planet." Because God ordained that humans should multiply and fill the earth, so the successive generations grow larger and larger than the previous generations. And the previous generations work to prepare the way to accomodate all their children, and to expand the number of parents so that all the more babies can be born.
I think it is cool that there is so many people. I wouldn't want to be stuck on this huge planet, alone and bored, with nobody to talk to. See, I am even talking to strangers on the Internet.
And if sex is supposed to be so all-fired wonderful as our sex-obsessed society claims, that everybody has to have it, then why shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas in the world, feeling good? Sex shouldn't be about just one's own pleasure, but also that of one's mate, and to pass on life to one's children. And there should be commitment, love, and security involved. Fathers shouldn't run out on their responsibilities, their wives, and their kids.
Originally posted by Repo Man
But relying on the mistranslated myths of a stoneage desert nomad tribe to guide us through modern problems is possibly the most insane solution I've heard yet.
Imaginary deities will not get us out of the corner we have painted ourselves into.
In other words, you are superstitious, and make fun of my religious beliefs? I think the human sex or reproductive drive existed before humans could decide much of anything. God designed humans such that they would have to multiply. God destined us to multiply. God even made the process sort of fun or very pleasurable, and it also serves as a form of spiritual bonding. What in the world is this
verse about? I think childbirth wasn't even painful before the fall of man, when Adam and Eve got themselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden for sin. Ever since then our bodies die a little each day, where some Creationists think that the body's healing ability was incrediable, either before the Great Flood, or the Fall. The Bible does tell of people once living to over 900 years.
Whatever "corner we have painted ourselves in" was probably our destiny or something, and not so much our "painting." People joke that the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is about the only commandment humans have obeyed.
