title:
Naturally, traditionally, very large families are still for today too.
I don't care if it's bad for society. I think it is immoral to put more people on the planet knowing that our already incredible number is wrecking this planets ecosystems as we speak.
No, it is
generous to spread human life, because more and more people would be glad to live. Contraceptives have terrible side effects, and so-called more natural methods such as rhythm and early withdrawal, require too much self-control. The most natural and pro-life method, is the "no method" method, of inviting children to come alive, and just let babies push out, welcoming families to just grow and grow however large God allows.
Adding more people to the planet, is good for those additional individuals, who could live no other way. Enlarging our population size, is also good for society, as there's then more "society" to experience life. It's also good for parents who want or end up having children. People should be encouraged to have big families, so that the parents raising children are experienced, and so the benefit of nurturing children who love children, to enjoy having many children.
How can parents keep enjoying having their precious darling babies, in a world of so many people alive already? Isn't it obvious? Let the planet grow naturally denser and denser with people. There can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far away from lots of people. Welcome cities and towns and villages, to grow larger and closer together. We need not have "crowding," but we could need some urban sprawl, additional suburbs, here and there, to insure a place for everybody.
Now about the question of increased longevity (which isn't really "eternity"), it's a misconception that it would somehow require birthrates to be more restricted. Not at all. If we only added people to the planet, and then they stay and stay, it doesn't really make that much difference, in how fast population numbers may spiral, in fact, it should be even better. Birthrates may still remain natural and "unrestrained," allowing population to accumulate and accumulate. Did you know that for each death, currently 3 more people are born to replace that lost person? Babies enter the world nearly 3 times as fast as people die. So if people stop leaving, it really doesn't add much more to those numbers. It's generally old people who pass on of natural causes, or perhaps of the problems of a corrupt greedy Big Pharma system. But it's the younger generations of people who are having the children, and who in many regions of the world, are more populous generations than the older people who were born when the world's population was billions less than it is now. If people were to stop dying, and live to many 100s of years old, surely that would correspond to a reduction of people requiring costly medical care and costly nursing home care?
So death control without birth control, is even more ideal.
Our incredible number is God's doing, for didn't God promise Abraham descendants so numerous as to be nearly as uncountable as the stars of the sky, the grains of sand on a seashore, or of the grains of dust? Apparently, God wasn't joking, as it was God who designed humans to multiply exponentially.
It's also very moral, to respect the body's natural reproductive rhythms, to welcome babies to come alive and be born, and to make no effort to hinder the natural spread of human life within responsible and stable marriages/families. We have no obligation to pollute our bodies directly with either nasty cancer stick cigarettes, nor with the awful unnatural anti-life contraceptives. Letting the sperm spurt naturally onto the eggs, is natural, and proper, and does not assure pregnancy. But if a pregnancy does start, so much the better for the progress and spread of the human race. There's a reason they call it
natural increase. It's natural and to-be-expected, and thus, to be planned for and welcomed.
