Should we be allowed to eat Humans?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Oh, are you trying to make a joke?
No, the taboo against canalibalism, is precisely in support of human rights, and so humans can enjoy becoming super-abundant, so a huge "abundance" of people, is no excuse to remove the taboo.
With some estimate 6.7 billion, and naturally-growing, human mouths to feed upon the planet, even common sense suggests that humans should be allowed to eat most anything, other than humans.
I agree fully, with the natural human reproductive drive naturally converting relatively cheap organic matter, or food, into more and more people, and welcoming people around the world, to go on naturally pushing out their babies, without the awkward use of shoddy experimental contraceptive potions and poisons. Welcome the natural flow of human life to flow naturally unhindered.
I only favor the lax restraints I see in the Bible, of people getting married first, and providing for and loving and caring for their possibly many children.
Technically, about the only thing that separates the family pet from Koreans or whoever eating dogs, is that the animal becomes worth more, having been adopted as a pet by humans. Until then, a dog is much like a cow. Neither is created in God's image, as humans are.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Can you provide us with a list of the, say, 15 most important creatures on Earth, starting with the most important ?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
- Humans
- pets of humans
- possible food for humans, and plants
- Microbes aren't hardly important at all, except for certain beneficial ones. Of course microbes do serve in breaking down wastes.
Any other rankings, say like "Top 15" would likely be but an arbitrary opinion.
To athropomorphic for you? Too bad, what did you expect from a human writer? Of course you knew that humans would top the list? Of course God trumps humans, but that would be an entirely different ranking scale.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I would expect humans to top most anyone's list. But other than that how can you rank all the other creatures. Most microbes are beneficial to humans by the way, only a handful are harmful to humans.
Apart from pointing out some cornerstone species there is no way you can rank species. Humans are not a cornerstone species by the way.
So it's just down to your personal life or death judgement as to which type of animal lives and dies. If you have human emotional ties to them they are safe, if there a cow or something there toast.
So why should I not be allowed to kill who and what I want to kill?, while I accept if you want to eat anything you like?. Do we respect my opinion as equal to your own?, or shall you condemn that which is different to your own while forcing others to accept your will and justice?.
If you shoot/eat a deer, and then I shoot/eat you thats fair and equal. What if you are just a walking food source to me?. I might be more highly adapted to killing than you are, making me higher up in the food chain, giving me rights to your ass in a bun.
peace.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
If I rank (naively loyal) dogs above (scheming sneaky) cats, would cat owners agree?
If humans are not a cornerstone kind, then you must be ranking by some unjustified biological prejudice, and not based upon the more relevant factors of philosophy and religion, or what just most people plain believe. Didn't you ask for a values ranking, and not a food web?
As almost nothing dares eat humans, if it wants to not go extinct, say like dinosaurs and dragons, on a food web, humans would be almost seemingly useless, well unless to keep the lower eschelons in check.
I like probably for all life, within reason to be abundant, but especially human life. I think our pets would perhaps very much want for humans to reproduce, based upon they like what we like or think is good for us, and that it's the only way that pet populations can now expand further. There's way too many pets in the world now, for them to all possible fend for themselves, so they are very dependent upon humans. More human families and homes, makes for more possible room to add more pets to the world as well. Along with human populations growing denser and denser, pet populations are also growing denser and denser. Ever wonder why so many dogs, even without much training, just don't bark at people anymore? Not just the highly trained handicapped assistance dogs that go into restaurants and be quiet, and are trained to ignore crowds of people, and pay attention to their owner's needs. I think in the view of many pet dogs, the whole world's already a vast crowd of people, so much of their natural territory defending instinct has been conditionedly lost, as it is with people. People have incredibly small "personal zone spaces," almost skin tight, depending on crowdedness levels. It's not just the pet owner that is the head of the dog pack, but the world is naturally "merging" into one enormous endless "pack" of live mammals, in the possible view of the pet dogs. So why would a dog then bark at people who "invade" its territory? What "territory?" They just want to sniff and greet a visitor, to see if he be a friend, and as they experience the world nearly as much by smell as by sight. Dogs do recognize people by their smell, don't they, and not just their voice or appearance?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Uh, what?
Most any human or is that humane? moral code, excludes humans from being on the menu.
There's the old joke, about whether upon becoming stranded upon some island leads to one being invited to dinner, or being the dinner, is dependent upon whether the missionaries have previously come to the island. I don't know about you, but I would rather wash up upon the island which the Christian missionaries visited first. Even many poor people can be quite kind, and will share what little food they have.
Doesn't it really boil down to whether people believe humans are created in God's image or not? Otherwise, it becomes a little harder to distinguish humans from "long pig." Technically, humans probably do smell a bit like meat, at least the mosquitos seem to think so. Of course cunning, clever human with spears, probably don't make for very good prey, even for dinosaurs. And humans communicate and "swarm" also, and there's so many many of us. Very unattactive qualities for "prey."
Your moral code? what if I want to follow my own moral code tha is not your own?.
Give me one reason why I can't eat humans and why you have the right to stop me, while munching on another animal?.
peace.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I just makes no sense.
"Unjustified biological prejuduce" ? lol That's a good one
Especially since you continue with "more relevant factors of philosophy and religion" :roflmao:
Erm.. isn't that exactly what you did ?
Humans ARE useless. In fact, they are harmful to the environment.
You cannot rank species in importance because food webs are delicate. Remove one species and it can all come crashing down. That's what cornerstone species are by the way. Species that are important for the integrity of an ecosystem.
What happens if humans are removed ? That's right almost all species will do better.
Except of course the ones that have adapted to our presence. But obviously they are resourceful species, they will probably adapt again. I'm talking about rats etc. in case you're wondering.
Oh and by the way, dragon have never gone extinct.. they never even existed :bugeye:
Of course you like that. But somewhere along the line some of us realized that there is a limit to our numbers if we are not to harm the natural environment. I'm pretty sure the limit has been reached.
Pets want no such thing. The just want food and a place to stay. We provide that for them so they stick around, that is if they are in fact free to go went they want.
In any case they don't know any better. I suggest you try petting a feral cat, see how much they like us.
Correct.. and who is to blame for that ? This also goes for humans, there are far too many humans in the world for all of them to fend for themselves naturally. It's a huge drain on the ecosystems.
I'm really biting my tongue here..
More humans = bigger problems. And the idea to add more humans so we add more pets is quite frankly insane.
What is the relevance of this ? Good for them but it goes to show how fucked up this world already is. Many wild animals are getting used to human presence as well.. which is, in the long run, diminishing their survival chances.
Speak for yourself. I like some privacy now and then.
I get irritated because of the huge crowds that move into the forest in the weekends, many bringing their shitfactories along.
When I go to the forest for a walk I like some peace and quiet, not groups of people that come by every 5 minutes, screaming and yelling and destroying plant life.
Wow what you are describing here is the stuff nightmares are made of. How can you wish for such a future ?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Intelligent creatures prefer to cooperate, to mutually enjoy being/becoming populous.
We see that even with human nations, using trade and sharing of technology, towards largely making all the countries to become more populous with people, all at the same time, for our mutural benefit.
Am I the only one around here who watches any sci-fi? Above some level, all intelligent life is considered to be sentient, and respected with "human rights."
Most all the various supposed races, in the Star Trek Federation of Planets, all pretty much treat each other as equals, although humans perhaps may seem more "evolved" than Klingons, and perhaps less "evolved" than Vulcans. Even the outside races seem to be somewhat respected, certainly not considered "food."
Your question is ridiculous, but if we apply "hypothetically" to make it more credible, rather than simply "highly improbable," then the answer would be, neither shall be hunted. We humans certainly would not tolerated being hunted, and in your example, this creature would likely behave in such a way, as to not be attractive to hunt either.
But then, don't you suppose the sentient aliens, which I rather doubt that any exist, would be more interested in helping us, than eating us? Or are we just a bunch of hungry, mindless, horny "animals" around here?
One of the huge reasons why I defend the right of human populations to multiply and multiply seemingly "unchecked," is because I do expect and hope, that we might actually be intelligent enough to deal with and mitigate with the effects? I do hope that I am not mistaken in that? Otherwise, maybe I will be the only one to get to multiply around here? I see that as a distinctly "human right" that other animals simply do not share. Most people don't even let their pets multiply in such a manner, and yet what parents doesn't sort of "expect" for their children to go on and have still more children, after they grow up and marry? I do hope that children will go on and keep having still more children of their own, as I do not support any arbitrary "cap" on just how massive human populations may manage to someday get. Especially if humans would strive to be civilized and friendly and reaffirm the proper social graces. If humans can grow all the more numerous, so much the better. So much more for the "progress" of the human race. And I have found in debating the issue, even some atheists are into the population "progress" of the human race, seeing it as serving some useful purpose to humans. So it's more really a "universal" natural view, than a "religious" view, depending from which side of the table you look.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Don't be offended, but how old are you exactly ?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Can you start to understand why religions are mutually exclusive? People can't all have their own private moral codes, otherwise, how could there be law and civilization?
How did they counter Nazis claiming to just be "following orders" at the Nurenburg Trials? Appeal to a higher power, God, is the answer. Humans have to answer to God, not merely to other humans.
Do you really want me to answer your question, or are you just being rhetorical or funny? Surely most everybody already thinks they know some answer? Even the "scrawny prey with the pointy spears," should make it fairly understandable, that humans aren't a good menu choice. Consider the dumb cows that stand around mooing all day, with nothing better to do, than be converted into steaks? Surely cows are a better choice. Well unless they stand upright and talk about science all day, and then "Car coming," then act like cows, like in some Far Side cartoon?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Don't you suppose a human city must appear "enormous" to a dog, that only walks a few streets of it?
Dogs don't understand such things, so why wouldn't it seem to them, that the entire "world" is filled with humans, like their city streets? Well until you take a dog on a hike on a crowded hiking trail? Whoops. Maybe that's the same effect as well? No wonder dogs treat us humans almost like "gods?" How could there just be so many many of us?
Well that's why I didn't take your bait for an overly complicated ranking. It just wouldn't relate well enough to the topic at hand.
"Unjustified biological prejuduce" ? lol That's a good one
Especially since you continue with "more relevant factors of philosophy and religion" :roflmao:
It really is a moral question, not a "humans as animals" biological question.
Don't you suppose that food web is somewhat irrelevant to the topic at hand? The topic isn't, "Can humans in extreme emergency eat already dead people?," But "Should we be allowed to eat Humans?" That is obviously a moral, or religious question. What part of "moral" do people around here, or you, not understand?
Now, of course, I could just answers the question:
Uh, No!
But what would be the point in just the obvious answer? To get an
Uh, duh?
response?
Presumably, the question then must imply something more, like maybe, Well why not?
I think even cremation of dead people, probably is more moral than "eating" them. Hardly a respectful way to treat dead loved ones. Maybe as many religious people seem to believe, burying toxified perserved mummified bodies is more respectful of the dead, by why exactly? In case somebody has to be later exhumed to be given an autopsy investigating suspected allegations of "foul play?" Or is it largely superstitition? Even though we never see anybody reclaiming their old decayed bodies for the afterlife, well except in some awful horror movies? Yes, I do believe in the afterlife, but I don't think our ability to receive glorified, non-perishable bodies is adversely affected by how our earthly bodies were or were not preserved. But if the planet was supposedly running out of room for the living, cremating dead bodies would be a lot more practical than wasting space on burials. Although, there's plenty of room for yuppies unproductive rich land-wasting golf course, parks, cemetaries, forests, growing cities, and on and on.
Oh really? So what? Why don't you stop pooping then? Whatever small negative impacts are easily mitigated by proper behavior and technology. Probably why growing cities generally should have now indoor toilets and not just nasty, closely-spaced outdoor outhouses. Not efficient enough anymore for the many tons of biological wastes the human race naturally produces every second.
Or at least certainly don't smoke nasty cancer stick cigarettes, with more and more people having to breathe the same air, especially since they aren't good for you and your future medical care costs.
It's a philosophical moral question, not a food web question.
And nature does benefit from humans as well. Our relationship with nature is far more symbiotic, than parasitic, well unless you want to talk about a select subgroup of humans, say like liberals or corrupt politicians. They say the grass grows greenest around the septic tank.
I know some "environmental" extremists or misinformed tree huggers, try to say all species are equal. But what they should understand, is that the Bible clearly says that God gave dominion over nature and other creatures to man, and that's what I see with continuing human population growth. It's why nature seems so unable or unwilling to stop the expansion of the human race. Because we enjoy dominion, meaning not only are we part of nature, but we also transcend nature, almost like "gods," although we are not god, but fashioned only in the image of God. As the human race grows and spreads and densifies, and alters nature to better support so many as we are getting to be, humanity and nature, become increasingly "one and the same." Something like when Barkley's mind "expanded" in the Enterprise starships computer, under the influence of some alien probe. Captain Piccard talks to the computer, and Barkley answers through the intercom. Because supposedly, he and the computer "merged" for a short while, and became "one." Anyway, that means our cities are also part of "nature" and such, as we have naturally grown so incredibly numerous that it naturally takes many cities just to hold so many. I disagree much with how some "environmentalists" like to draw lines between humans and nature. Maybe those lines are more vague and fuzzy than they like to admit? Maybe multiplying humans sort of a bit "replace" wilder "wilderness" nature, with a more tame and orderly human nature. Upon what basis do they opine and whine, that the former is somehow "better?" Isn't that merely an unsubstanciate anti-people, people-hating opinion?
Not really. Nature then reverts to a more "wild" and untamed state, becomes choked with unpenetratable jungle, climax species of tall trees take over reducing food for wildlife. Nature is not necessarily "happier" in such an unkempt state. That's like saying an unshaven homeless bum who hasn't bathed in months, is happier because he is free. Uh, probably not.
And few people really know much about how widespread forest fires used to become, before all the human intervention. Without human clearings, or efforts to intervene, didn't I read somewhere, that annually, some 40 or 60 million acres would burn in the U.S.? I've heard tale somewhere, that in the early settling of this country, there were routinely some really big forest fires. Once a forest caught on fire, during some particularly dry summer, there wasn't much anything to stop it, and it could just spread naturally for months, finding more and more fuel to burn away, growing unchecked, creeping, raging, creeping, spotting across natural firebreaks like rivers, smoldering, over millions of acres. I'm not saying I agree with Smoky Bear in so villianizing every forest fire. It probably would be a lot cheaper to let more forest fires grow naturally, unchallenged or mimimally challenged, letting nature do its thing, out in certain unpopulated roadless wilderness not worthy of the costly human fire suppression intervention. But human intervention certainly has helped reduced how smoky summers would otherwise be.
Why nasty vermin? What about squirrels and rabbits and birds? Incredibly abundant, but quite often keeping out of the way of humans, rarely ever invading our homes.
Never existed? Really? How can you be so sure? Some Creationalist said that behind most legends, is usually some element of truth. Why do we have so many tales of humans battling great creatures, such as dinosaurs and dragons? We know that dinosaurs existed at some time past, don't we, from all the fossil remains? They have found human footprints, inside of dinosaur footprints. Wouldn't that mean that both lived at the same time? What do you know? The Flintstones actually got that right! And I suppose some smaller dinosaurs might have made good pets? (Provided they stay small?) The Creationist said something about people forgetting about the dinosaurs, so the devil tells lies to prop up the theory of evolution. But in the Biblical timetable, there was no time for dinosaurs to thrive before humans came along, as we arrived upon the scene, in only a few days of Creation. So they must have lived then, at the same time. So what happened to the dinosaurs? A Far Side cartoon suggests a dinosaur smoking a cigarette, as to what doomed the dinosaurs. But more likely, natural human population growth did the dinosaurs in. The human population sizes got "out of hand," humans and dinosaurs didn't get along well, so obviously, the dinosaurs had to go. We hunted the dinosaurs to near extinction. The Great Flood wasn't kind to dinosaurs either, radically changing the climate. Lizards and dinosaurs are much the same thing, claims the Creationist, and lizards never stop growing. But they don't live long enough or something anymore, to get as big as before. And in the swamps of Africa, have been spotted a few creatures that look strangely like dinosaurs. I suppose they largely fear people and hide though. I don't know as much about dragons, other than that some young lady I used to work with, was fascinated with drawings and making drawings of dragons. Hmmm. Maybe they aren't just an old myth?
Minor impacts are increasing somewhat. There's now so many people alive, that we can really foul up rivers with all our human wastes, especially as more and more is added downstream. Why do you think we have waste water treatment plants, and more and more of the world is getting indoor flush toilets? It's okay to pee directly under the ocean water at the beach, because the water is so vast as to make no difference. But not so much anymore near streams or slow-flowing ponds or rivers, especially considering all the additional people downstream. So rather than blame the babies for coming to life, we are supposed to use some "artificial" means to help nature out a bit, and keep waste water out of drinking water. Growing cities should also have proper trash collection. With proper ADAPTATIONS, of the natural minor sort that most sensible people would want anyway, there's no reason at all, that lots more people, so many people's children, can't be naturally added.
Pets also seem to much prefer our companionship. At least dogs crave it. Cats act sometimes like, it's we the humans who are their pets. That's one reason I don't much care for cats. They like to be petted, only when they want to be socialable. Dogs are socialable, all the time.
Animals behave much better, when domesticated by humans. Even when I had hamsters, as a child, I find they need to be handled. If they are neglected, they get all jumpy almost like they are afraid of us humans.
Nonsense. Humans are intelligent, and some say we adapt "too well" to our environment. It's a different standard with humans. I have no objection to pet owners choosing to get their pets "fixed." Pets have no "human rights," and don't need any offspring if we choose not to breed them, because they now have us for "families." They pretty much do it one way for pets, showing that whatever they are doing, appears to work. But humans have such a confusing myriad of contraceptive methods, because all have been found to be shoddy or unsatisfactory, so off they go to devise yet another experimental shoddy method. Goes to show, humans simply were not designed to use any means of "birth control."
Now of course, almost nobody is truly "independent," except for maybe the Lone Ranger. But that doesn't at all mean we can't cooperate for mutual benefit, to help everybody around naturally grow all the more abundant, which is largely what our jobs do, alter nature towards humans naturally growing all the more populous, as most all productive jobs directly serve people in some way.
Now of course, humans can do something to put a bit of a limit upon pet populations, to more favor humans reproducing and human needs. But we can't impose birthing restrictions upon our neighbors, because humans are the moral equals of their neighbors. So there's no basis by which to impose such "authority." It requires a "higher power," which humans hold over our pets and livestock. Our "higher power" is God, who specifically commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Now are we going to let even our dogs, behave smarter than we do? Let's say you have a male dog, and introduce him to a bitch in heat, and tell him to "have fun," how many dogs will just say no, not interested? No, I think the pet thinks more like, well if my master says I have to, then I must have to. Might as well have fun. Pets know we will probably take care of them, so they don't worry about it, besides, they probably don't even know what makes babies, offspring are just a trick or surprise nature plays on them. How did humans forget that God takes care of us, especially when we seek to do God's will and live according to his ways? A dumb animal will often do what it is told, but humans have more pathetic excuses, than we ought. And what else is the ecosytem for, but to be filled mainly with humans?
Well what if we get rid of all the humans? No more problems? But then where would be the benefit to us? It's a huge "conflict of interest" for humans to opine that there should be fewer humans. If we could just ease that magical planetary population dial down a bit, do you really think the world would become simply "less crowded?" Not at all! You would disappear, I would disappear, or far too many friends and loved ones would disappear. It would be a horror, about as bad, if the aliens came and found humans to be like "really tasty food."
I'm merely saying that pets benefit from more humans, as they then also grow more numerous. I'm not saying to add more humans so we can add more pets. Not at all. Add more humans, so more humans can experience life. My aim here, is very much human-centric.
Oh well, they didn't help us pay our rent anyway. And most people don't much appreciate all that many animals while they were here. And the animals that most people do notice, are the ones not at all threatened in any way, by further human population increases.
People ought to be smart enough, to never, ever, feed the bears and alligators. Some dumb animals only confuse humans with food, and then become problem animals, bears breaking into cars after food, as you say, diminsishing their survival chances.
But there's nothing I can reasonably do, about how having my babies, may make the scent of humanity grow all the stronger, wafting across the planet. If I don't have my God-given children, presumably other people will have their children anyway. I value any children God entrusts to me, far more than a bear or a crocodile that I never see in the wild anyway. I do not at all think humans should slow their "encroachment" upon wildlife refuges, or villages slow swelling with human numbers near the borders of such designates, supposedly wild areas. I believe we should go on welcoming our babies to push out naturally, without birth control, without trying to "space" our babies, encouraging more people to marry young if or as they are ready, so that all the more fellow humans may benefit by coming alive. Let the various villages merge, and swell naturally into former wildlife refuges, as the value of people easily trumps that of wild animals that already use land very inefficiently.
We humans can't really be expected to help that God caused us to grow so numerous. I don't know how to be "less numerous," do you? Can a person like be "half a person?" Yeah, I'm frugal and all that, but I still believe in having the babies people were meant to have, which means at some point, even people who live with supposedly lesser or minimal "environmental impact," whatever that is supposed to mean, become 2 people, 4 people, a dozen people. And so even frugal people like me, who might take the time to possibly potty train early, may produce quite many dirty disposable diapers in landfills.
In a way, dogs being social creatures, were "smart," if you could call it that. They got in good with humans early on, and as a result, their populations also "mushroomed" along with that of the humans. Dogs seem to share in the "unlimited" food we humans also produce for ourselves.
Oh sure, why not? But don't expect to find much "privacy" on a crowded subway train car in some cities during rush hour. People just wouldn't understand, if you insist upon an excessively big "personal space zone." Maybe you had just better stay home?
So which part do you get irritated at? At all the people, for merely existing, or for their loud boisterous or rude behavior? I can't at all fault people for the former. In fact, that's a lot of the reason I would even go on a hike, to meet people, something to do. Not at all to "get away from it all." I can "get away from it all," at home, immersed into a good book or video game, even if there are other people around. And I like for people to bring their children, babies, and dogs along. On some Church group hike I went on, one of our members brought her dog, even took it off its leash, and let her dog run the trail with us. Why not, if the dog is well behaved enough and not running off getting lost? And it doesn't bother me to see our "camping out neighbors" change their baby's diaper, out there on their blanket, in front of their car, where a huge number of people came out into some field to watch the Independence Day fireworks. What annoys me, is that I suspect most people have little clue what all the fireworks actually celebrate, at least judging by the sorry way that so many people vote wrong, voting against freedom and fiscal responsibility, rather than for it.
I am very pro-life, so of course, I like for people to bring their "shitfactories," ehem! cute little adorable precious babies along, wherever they would go.
What? People can't have fun and talk and joke around? I could sleep in a crowd, just so long as they seem to be no threat, friendly, and don't bother me. And I'm pretty sure the plants don't mind all the people tramping along, as plants can't think anyway. And I don't mind our Church group camping in some "overflow" area of the campground. What do I care if the campground is supposedly "overflowing?" There's apparently room for us too, and it doesn't just totally ruin my day, at the thought that other people may be having fun. Now maybe it's antoher story with some people-hating liberals, from some of their anti-people views?
Because welcoming other's people's children to naturally come alive, helps insure that my children, and their children, will be similarly welcomed to come alive. Because I, like most people, don't want to be told how many children I may have.
Most people seem to have little idea what even coal and oil is, judging by the incorrect term of "fossil fuels," as if no more can ever be made now. Coal and oil, is dead plant and animal material compressed under much weight, quite much of it probably resulting from the huge sudden cataclysm of the Great Flood. Why do people currently need so much oil? Energy is a big part of it, for now, to power our growing cities and rising numbers of cars, but what is really happening, since oil produces fertilizer also, is that oil is being converted into increasing abundance of life, not just human life, but animals also. Oil helps humans to in effect, in some way to "eat the planet," towards humans growing all the more numerous. Oil is helping to grow life all the more abundant, all the more reason why we need to be drilling more of it, to counter poverty and stop needlessly oppressing the working poor with skyhigh gasoline prices, that the rich people can easily afford while they refuse to use less, expecting the working poor to make all the sacrifices. Just another reason why I don't much care for lying hypocrites like Al Gore. BTW, according to the Demographic Transition Theory which I already dispute somewhat, if poverty can't soon be reduced, human birthrates tend to remain stuck at a high level. So one way or another, people have to be allowed to make their responsible decisions, and accumulate wealth, to better care for their growing families.
Read up more on the radical NWO depopulation agenda, and maybe you might come to understand better, where I am coming from. Why do humans want to so much "play god" and try to "control" what we were never meant to control, when it's hard enough to be good humans?
How old am I? Let's just say, old enough to have seen the world population double within my lifetime. So obviously then, I am not some naive little highschool or gradeschool kid. I've been a prolife activist since 1991. I do much reading and listening on the issues I debate, from both and more, sides. And I found it such a relief to find a pretty good rationale, for humans not using any means of birth control at all, as I don't particularly like any of the methods. I hardly think babies to be "scary," but wonderous "blessings from God." Too often we forget what a "magical" world the world actually is, until our children somehow remind us, as they don't know how it all works yet, so they see the wonder we often have long forgotten.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Holy shit Pronatalist !
I'll get back to you tomorrow.. lol
I understand.
Sometimes, I run out of time, and have to walk off and say "later." And then sometimes, I am tired or something, and prefer to sleep on it to get more "inspired," and then my computer freezes up or something, and ooops! forgot where to reply to?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I've been ill for a few days. I'm a bit better now but just a bit tired at this hour (11:21 PM).
So I can't go through that huge post of yours right now
Sorry man, I promise I will tomorrow.
Edit: I'll subscribe to this thread so I won't forget.
Kuru in particular is transmitted by eating infected humans, particularly the brain.
Prion diseases generally concentrate in the neural tissue. BSE is thought to have started from feeding cattle prion infected sheep "by products."
But you can get it from eating the flesh of any infected animal. There are a few casses each year in the states of people getting infected from infected deer.
Prions aren't actually "alive," even as much as retro viruses are. They are literally just fancy malformed protiens that get caught up and replicated, but can't be used for anything and choke the cell to death after a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion