The population problem

[Persol]

Originally posted by Fukushi
Well:
-first;
only the rich can afford one or more children,... that's not MY definition of closing the gap and unequality between rich and poor!
Statistically proven that poor people reproduce faster then rich people. So the next generation of people born rich will be about the same size, while the number born poor will increase.
Also, there are many stories of people coming from being poor to being lawyers, scientists, etc... There are also many stories about rich kids who waste all their money and become poor...

-second;
After the rich families have lots of families, they can get a stronger grip on sociological structures and are definately more benefitted, such as: -Financial loans: bigger families get lower intrest-rates,...
Larger family = less money per person in that family

IN-E-QUALITY
That alone should refrain one to commit such idears to society. Think people, before you act and say really DUMB things.
So, therefore there are no birthristrictions needed.
Birth ristrictions have very little to do with 'in-e-quality' as you put it. Very simple, if you can't get off your ass and get a job then don't have kids. The alternative is that we stop giving welfare to these people and their kids just starve...
You can live off minimum wage in this country... I did it the entire time I was going to college. The simple fact is that we some form of birth control until we could afford kids.

 

[Pronatalist]

Promote large families worldwide, so more people can enjoy life!

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
there is no population problem, the idea of population as a problem comes from people who are closet case, clostophobia.
the world will not begin to have a population problem untill the population reaches some 2 trillion beleive me the figures have been done, the probelm is with the mangagement of civilizatin.
even at 2 tirllion the state of population would still be reasonable and the problem just begining. what it demonstares is that in a perfect system we have a long way to go before their is a population problem. it also shows that people are making up ideas to effect society the way they want to, to fulfill there parinoid ideas.
wehat is needed is better management, leaders with better ideas, restructing of laws ect.... the idea of brith controll ect... to controll societys growth is not need in real figures that relate TO REAL TIME events of population growth and supply of resources.

be fruitfull and multipy on the face of the earth.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Large families should be encouraged worldwide, so that more and more people can enjoy life. Duh?

Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is plenty of room for humans to grow into on earth for the forseeable future. Cities and towns should be welcome to grow bigger and closer together, and to infill with people or coelesce together, as people welcome their families to possibly grow large in the biggest of megacities. Why couldn't we stack people up in tall buildings to make room for more people, if we ever had to, if we really claim to care about people or our neighbors? Human population growth should be encouraged, as it benefits "the many."

God did not create humans to be "too fertile." The human reproductive system of married people should be free to function naturally, just like any other part of the body. The body (or God) sort of "knows" when to get pregnant on its own, without nasty anti-life contraceptives.

Space colonization is impractical considering today's technology, but we already have lots of technologies that help support large populations of people.

Most everybody wants to live, most people want to have children, and the majority of people are not finished having children. Logically, the #1 population concern should be that more and more people would want to live. That's a worthy goal, so large families should be encouraged worldwide. Human population growth should only be accomodated, not limited. Ideally, if God allows, human population should be big, big, and "unchecked." Giving birth should be encouraged, and anti-life "birth control" discouraged. Future people would not want to have been eliminated.

The Utilitarian Principle suggests that people should do what does the most good for the most people. Well the obvious side effect of that idea, is that human population should be nearly as large as possible, if some "optimum" human population size could somehow be defined. More people = more people around to benefit from whatever = more benefit.

Converting relatively cheap matter or food into human bodies (or souls) of practically infinite worth, represents an incrediable "investment," at least philosophically.

What are the numbers of how many people the earth could hold, if it was ever needed? Who knows but God? But since more people want to live, and space colonization isn't practical yet, the obvious solution to the population question, is for human populations to grow denser and denser. While that doesn't necessarily mean more "crowded," it does mean to urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed. All nations should be proud to welcome large and growing populations within or without their borders, so that more people can live, at least somewhere. I would much rather be born on some "overcrowded" planet, than not at all, because there were too few births.

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born."

Those over-educated, self-appointed "experts" (educated idiots) who claim whatever prattle or whining about there supposedly being "too many" people apparently don't know who people are (created in God's image), or who God is who supplied us with all the resources we would ever need if we would but be smart enough to harvest and develop them, or are lying to sell their books and be rich at the expense of oppressing the poor.

If the world's burgeoning billions of humans could eventually breed into trillions of people, we should be proud to do so, and celebrate sustained and widespread baby booms whether or not we colonize to fill more planets. But given sluggish and selfish population trends and Biblical prophecy, I don't think it likely we will have to find room for many more billions of people. I don't believe in using any means of anti-family "birth control" or rhythm, because children are a blessing from God, and how could I ever choose which child I wish I didn't have? Most parents end up loving ALL their children, and having big families, or growing up with brothers and sisters quite often is a positive experience. Most people should be able to somehow contribute more to society than they just consume or waste, so more people should be a positive change. Had we had eyes to see, we should have seen that human population growth does tend to accelerate the growth of technology, and that many inventions we too often take for granted, are related to growing human population or God's grace, or both. Many things like computer chips, can't be manafactured at affordable prices in small quantities. I think it is large quantities of people that leads to such things as high-speed Internet, fancy cellular phones loaded with cute toys now like polyphonic MIDI ringers and color screens and cameras, and of course such "necessities" as toilets.

What part of God's commandment to multiply and fill the earth, did we not understand? (Gen. 1:28, 9:1, Ps. 127:3-5, Pr. 14:28, Deut. 30:19)

 

[SkinWalker]

I'll have to come back to read this thread... but I voted for "There is no population problem."

It is clear that the problem isn't the number of living people.

The problem is the affordability of resources.

2/3 of the world's population lives on less than $2 per day. 1/3 lives on less than $1.

Famine, etc. are all symptoms of not getting available resources to the needy or making them affordable.

 

[Pronatalist]

Plan for success and welcoming human population growth.

I voted for "There is no population problem" too.

There are already so many people alive, and so many people enjoying fucking and making babies, it think it is a little late for "family planning" or "population control." I can't imagine what socialist/communist educated idiots would think trying to put condoms on over 3 billion penises in the world, is even a good idea? Or even practical or realistic. Let the sperm freely spurt where it was designed to go. Welcoming families to possibly grow large, is the normal and healthy outlet for reproductive urges, not the contraceptives so often associated with sexual immorality and "dirty sex." Like a few billion more people would even be noticable in a world with billions already? There aren't "too many" people, but human population growth = progress. Human population growth, or the creation of precious new people, much like you and me, should only be accomodated, not limited. Besides baby booms are cool, and a great sign of possible optimism for the future. Why stand in the way of the population growth people probably want anyway? Would you stand in front of a speeding semi truck and hope it stops just for you? I don't think so. Let human population growth go on unhindered, as Julian Simon claims in his book by the same name, that people are "The Ultimate Resource."

I believe there are some 6 billion+ reasons why world population needs to be at least as large as it is. Any gain in human population benefits so many people who couldn't have lived otherwise, that it should be positively encouraged. Large and growing human populations should be encouraged everywhere, at least for the benefit of "the many."

world happiness = average happiness x number of people alive.

 

[spookz]

i find you gloriously insane. keep up the good work

 

[SwedishFish]

it has been shown that the more educated a person is, the more careful about maintaining their contraception they are. the higher up in the education ladder you go, the fewer children you have and the later in life you have them. so plain old education is as effective as sex education.

it takes about 100 babies in a third world country to use the same amount of resources as it takes 1 baby in a developed country to use.

statistics show that minority women are much more likely to be sterilized by the doctor after giving birth and told it was a necessity. not that this means anything. it could be a coincidence that significantly more minorities have birth complications that require them to be sterilized afterwards but some would argue that it is the belief that minorities, especially hispanic women, breed too much and need to be forced not to. but i wouldn't dream of accusing doctors of blatant racism.

to meat or not to meat is an entirely different issue. it should be noted that bad diet is bad diet. you can't blame veganism for malnutrition during pregnancy because it happens in meat-eaters too. it's only that it's hyped up when it happens to vegans because the meat industry wants to deter you. in fact, most meat products, especially cheeses and processed meats, should be avoided during pregnancy. there is no data showing that vegans are more likely to have poor natal nutrition. *all* pregnant women should be on a regimen of prenatal vitamins and a diet set up by the obgyn. you can get everything your body needs solely from plants. b12 is the only thing that is kind of hard to come by but it is produced by some bacterias. it is what is in those b vitamin suppliments (which i take). "fish" oils are also present in many nuts and seeds.

 

[Pronatalist]

A "environmental" virtue to be poor? Not hardly!

Originally posted by SwedishFish
... it takes about 100 babies in a third world country to use the same amount of resources as it takes 1 baby in a developed country to use ...

That part is just poverty-promoting propaganda of the eco-freaks. It is people who are poor who can't afford to do much about pollution and such.

If we are to have a populous world where people are free to enjoy having "all the children God gives," we should want that world to be rich, not poor, to help insure that all the people can be fed, and that pollution can be properly treated or minimized.

It is often the poor who produce the most pollution and make the worst use of resources. (i.e. deforestation for firewood rather than durable furniture and homes) Rich people have options.

One of the problems is people huddling around smoky fires, or burning dung, to cook their food or stay warm. Do we see rich people doing that? No, we have modern electric and gas stoves, and our homes stay warm year-round. The rest of the world should be welcome to live like that too, and to have toilets.

And that people tend to have fewer children when they get "educated" shows that people don't always get smarter when they get "educated."

 

[spookz]

i need more superlatives

 

[SkinWalker]

Re: A "environmental" virtue to be poor? Not hardly!

I don't necessarily disagree with your whole post, but I hope that I can clarify one or two of your points.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
That part is just poverty-promoting propaganda of the eco-freaks.

Actually, it is quite believable and I've seen this statistic in the past, though I can't comment on it's validity since the source eludes me. I suspect if you search the United Nations publications on the web, you may find it, though.

I have a two year old, and I can attest that we used a LOT of resources in her first year. Diapers, wipes, a multitude of foods, formula, milk, clothes, fuel for baby-specific trips in the car, additional electricity costs, and the many toys that are all made of plastic - a petroleum product.

In my travels of the world, I've seen many third world nations such as Honduras and Guatamala, where a baby was lucky to have a clean bottle and some actual milk to drink. Clothing was scarece and diapers were few and re-used. The food consumed by a baby in the third world (now referred to as the periphery) is significantly less than in core countries. Other resources are similar in consumption.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
It is people who are poor who can't afford to do much about pollution and such.

It's interesting to note, that it was US Policy to export our pollution to the developing, peripheral nations of the world and may still be. Pollution in developing nations isn't solely their own responsibilities.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
It is often the poor who produce the most pollution and make the worst use of resources. (i.e. deforestation for firewood rather than durable furniture and homes) Rich people have options.

A larger problem for deforestation is the beef industry. Many, many acres of land are allocated for lucrative grazing use and cash crop planting. The result is that a relatively few individuals increase their wealth, while a significant number of the indigenous people lose their livelihoods. Gone is subsistance farming and peasants must work peasant wages to make a meager living.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
One of the problems is people huddling around smoky fires, or burning dung, to cook their food or stay warm. Do we see rich people doing that? No, we have modern electric and gas stoves, and our homes stay warm year-round. The rest of the world should be welcome to live like that too, and to have toilets.

I very much agree with that. Smoke from primitive stoves is also a significant health problem among the third-world population.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
And that people tend to have fewer children when they get "educated" shows that people don't always get smarter when they get "educated."

The actual, most likely cause for that practice is that, with an education, comes a career. A career leaves little room for child rearing. Periphery populations have larger families because it is as simple as more family members=more income. Child labor is extremely common in periphery nations.

 

[Pronatalist]

Re: Re: Promote wealth and freedom throughout the world.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I don't necessarily disagree with your whole post, but I hope that I can clarify one or two of your points.



Actually, it is quite believable and I've seen this statistic in the past, though I can't comment on it's validity since the source eludes me. I suspect if you search the United Nations publications on the web, you may find it, though.

The United Nations has no credibility with me. They are too much into contraceptive imperilism, population control, and whatever world government take over conspiracies to usher in the Anti-Christ. And full of false religion, and humanism -- man pretending he is God, which only makes people a curse to each other.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I have a two year old, and I can attest that we used a LOT of resources in her first year. Diapers, wipes, a multitude of foods, formula, milk, clothes, fuel for baby-specific trips in the car, additional electricity costs, and the many toys that are all made of plastic - a petroleum product.

So? I don't see using all that stuff, including disposable diapers, as a problem. We love our children, so of course we use the resources God gave us to care for them. If we welcome human populations to expand unchecked, and make people a priority, and use more and more diapers, more electricity and toys, and stuff, we will only find all the more ways to get the additional resources we need. The myth of scarcity is a problem of bad leadership and improper investing. God gave us all the resources we need, and nature could care less how populated we get. Why do we suppose world population is growing so much? Because it should grow, and because the world can actually hold many more people. As world population has grown, so has the number of square feet in our homes, the number of bathrooms in our homes, the amount of stuff in our homes, and yet our families are shrinking? We have more resources per capita than ever, and now we claim we can no longer "afford" children? Well maybe if we would stop voting to keep increasing our taxes to worship the government rather than God, in some naive belief that the government can take care of us?

Originally posted by SkinWalker
In my travels of the world, I've seen many third world nations such as Honduras and Guatamala, where a baby was lucky to have a clean bottle and some actual milk to drink. Clothing was scarece and diapers were few and re-used. The food consumed by a baby in the third world (now referred to as the periphery) is significantly less than in core countries. Other resources are similar in consumption.

And the world is somehow better off, because those people have less? I don't think so. Rather, poor people probably have less respect for the environment, when they can't get much past how to get food on their plates.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
A larger problem for deforestation is the beef industry. Many, many acres of land are allocated for lucrative grazing use and cash crop planting. The result is that a relatively few individuals increase their wealth, while a significant number of the indigenous people lose their livelihoods. Gone is subsistance farming and peasants must work peasant wages to make a meager living.

I read that eating meat actually helps humanity buy "food insurance." Not only do farmers produce way more food than is needed to feed the human population, when some of the grain is fed to cattle, but in times of famine, we could quit feeding the farm livestock, and even eat the animals.

When people have money, there is even less chance of famine, as they could always buy or import food if local crops fail. There is also more means of preserving and storing food.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
I very much agree with that. Smoke from primitive stoves is also a significant health problem among the third-world population.

As villages grow, and cities gain more people, it makes sense to switch to cleaner fuels, like nuclear powered power plants, and natural gas. More cars is fine, as cars burn cleaner now. But what is really needed, is simple stuff like we know how to do already. Things like treated running water, and toilets.

Originally posted by SkinWalker
The actual, most likely cause for that practice is that, with an education, comes a career. A career leaves little room for child rearing. Periphery populations have larger families because it is as simple as more family members=more income. Child labor is extremely common in periphery nations.

That is a shame, that we would value money over children when children are worth so much more. Whatever happened to just the father working for money? Feminism, in its claims that women must live like men to be "inportant," has messed up the family and society. It's funny that the more money people get, the less able they seem to be to "afford" children. It just goes to show our priorities are misplaced, or that we are more selfish than we might care to admit.

 

[okinrus]

I think were picturing an overly rosy picture. When the population climbs, we are sure that there will be more war. In the last hundred years we were engaged in two world wars. We can be certain that the super powers of tomorrow will also battle for power. Huge stretches of land might become radioactively contaminated.

 

[SkinWalker]

Re: Re: Re: Promote wealth and freedom throughout the world.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
The United Nations has no credibility with me.

Whatever one thinks of the United Nations, their data is credible and backed by verifiable sources.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
So? I don't see using all that stuff, including disposable diapers, as a problem. .....

I was merely attempting to demostrate the veracity of SwedishFish's comment:

... it takes about 100 babies in a third world country to use the same amount of resources as it takes 1 baby in a developed country to use ...

Originally posted by Pronatalist
I read that eating meat actually helps humanity buy "food insurance." ... but in times of famine, we could quit feeding the farm livestock, and even eat the animals.

That's assuming that the livestock owner can no longer protect his livestock. He certainly isn't experiencing famine.... but the peasants that traditionally worked the land prior to it being fenced off have no means of subsisting beyond the meager wages they earn doing non-traditional labor. They experience poverty to a degree you will probably never understand.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
When people have money, there is even less chance of famine, as they could always buy or import food if local crops fail. There is also more means of preserving and storing food.

The problem with famine isn't a lack of food. It's a lack of distribution and affordability like you say. Indigenous people have little say in how to relieve their own problems. They are at the mercy of governments and non-governmental organizations. Their only method is hope. The answer is for governments and NGO's to work harder at delivering unused crops to the world's poor; set limitations on the practice of blackmailing indigenous people with "christ for food" mission work; and invest real capital in the form of social and political as well as cash in these nations.

Originally posted by Pronatalist
As villages grow, and cities gain more people, it makes sense to switch to cleaner fuels, like nuclear powered power plants, and natural gas. More cars is fine, as cars burn cleaner now. But what is really needed, is simple stuff like we know how to do already. Things like treated running water, and toilets.

No argument from me there. These things would come from proper capital investment.

 

[Pronatalist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Human population growth = great progress for humanity.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pronatalist
As villages grow, and cities gain more people, it makes sense to switch to cleaner fuels, like nuclear powered power plants, and natural gas. More cars is fine, as cars burn cleaner now. But what is really needed, is simple stuff like we know how to do already. Things like treated running water, and toilets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by SkinWalker
No argument from me there. These things would come from proper capital investment.

So many people benefit from any gain in human population, who could not have been born otherwise, that we should only invest in population growth and accomodation, and nothing into anti-life contraception. We should welcome human populations to grow denser or to spread and enlarge, as it is all the more people around who can enjoy life.

Large families are cool to promote worldwide, so that all the more people can live. People would want to be welcome and to be born, even in heavily populated countries or regions.

And of course producing more children, is the obvious and natural outlet for reproductive urges. God made sex pleasurable, not merely to entertain humanity's hedonistic desires, but so that human populations would eventually tend to grow quite large. I believe part of the dominion God gave humans over nature, is being welcome to grow to be among the most populous of large mammals. (If the world thinks that sex is so wonderful and society wants to be so obsessed with sex, why shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas enjoying it then? Even as the number of women of childbearing years rises, and the world now has a billion teenagers, large "unplanned" families should still be encouraged. Humans should "plan" to grow and increasingly "fill" the world.) Not only are humans intelligent and social creatures capable not only of surviving but thriving at high population densities, but humans were destined to be numerous. Isn't it curious that humans get to enjoy being "in heat," and being capable of breeding year-round, unlike the other animals? God made humans "special" in many ways.

 

[fadingCaptain]

pronatalist,
Unfortunately, many people in developing countries share your undereducated backwards view.

They have 10 or 12 children who grow up in miserable poverty without any education so they can in turn have a dozen kids each. Hense the issue which led me to post this thread.

 

[Fukushi]

Listen ASSHOLES !!!!

I live in the most densly populated area of the world,...comparable with TOKIO. Populous/m²

Today, I went to the only swimming pool in the nabourhood: I had to bicycle an half hour to get there in the first place.

It was overcrowded and I couldn't swim one straight lane without bumping into people twice or more. If all the people that where on laying on the five foot sqware lawn would jump in,...then the water, wich I never saw so filthy by the way, would come out over the egde and you would have to stand in the water straight, since a horizontal position would certainly mean some people being drowned underneath the surface of bodies.

And that's not all: ,.... the noise,... more then 20decibel shouting and screaming from children and adolecents. A wonder no-one jumped on my back!

No,...this was to much for my nerves. No wonder I swam my laps as good as I could and that will be the last time I went to the swimming-pool on a sunny day.


And what's that with more cars? EVEN MORE cars you say? What are you nuts? You are a completa moron!###^#^@§é^!!RAAAAH!!
The roads are stacked with traffic, from sunrise till moonlight!!!! And you are thinking it would be best to TRY to overload them further??!???!!!?? Man, you must be living in a part of the world where there's still some place left: wich doesn't make you the best person to decide wheter or not there should be more traffic than the roads can handle.

Most Goverments troughout the world are having trouble even creating 200.000 jobs...without letting their unemployment figgures raise offcourse. Let alone create jobs for DOUBLE the people that are living now.

No man: you must be out of your head to promote somthing like this: WAR OVER WATER, WAR OVER LAND, WAR OVER RESOURCES

Because: when there's double the people: there's double the resources needed!!! Where are YOU thinking of???

Ah man: no offence, probably you will attack me now on personal grounds before taking my points into consideration,...

even when you look at those points I make,...you will not most likely change you mind on it.

But take it from a guy who knows what's it like: living in a box with cars and noise and agression and so on and on,....
if I where to make you a list of counterpoints: you wouldn't believe it to be the truth.


So before you're off shouting we should make more offspring, you should work to create a reasonable incentive for people like me, so that people like me don't want to kill you for saying such stupid things.

And take this from me: I'm not convinced of the case for birth-restrictions, but I DO realise that there's a population problem!

 

[Pronatalist]

Re: Listen. More and more people would be glad to live!

Originally posted by Fukushi
I live in the most densly populated area of the world,...comparable with TOKIO. Populous/m2

Are you for real? To say you live "in the most densely populated area of the world," but to not even identify what country that would happen to be, suggests some imaginary and hypothetical example for the sake of argument, rather than an actual situation? Just wondering?

Also if it is so crowded as you claim, and that is such a negative thing, how come you haven't moved away long time ago?

Originally posted by Fukushi
Today, I went to the only swimming pool in the nabourhood: I had to bicycle an half hour to get there in the first place.

So I guess they don't have freezing cold air conditioning most everywhere where you live, like we do in the United States? I wouldn't have to go far at all to go swimming, and while I would have to go down a busy road, I probably could walk there in less than a half an hour. And that's if I want to swim in a "public" pool. There is nothing saying I can't have a nice swimming pool installed in my back yard, except that it tends to reduce property value, because prospective home buyers often don't want the maintenence of a swimming pool to come with the home. But I rarely go swimming, because I have central air conditioning for my home, and going swimming would probably suggest I have lots of "free time," which I manage to spend on soemthing like typing on my iMac computer.

Originally posted by Fukushi
It was overcrowded and I couldn't swim one straight lane without bumping into people twice or more. If all the people that where on laying on the five foot sqware lawn would jump in,...then the water, wich I never saw so filthy by the way, would come out over the egde and you would have to stand in the water straight, since a horizontal position would certainly mean some people being drowned underneath the surface of bodies.

Ahh, I feel so sorry for you... Well not really. What did you expect when you went during the peak time of the day? Sounds to me like there is not too many people at all, but far too few swimming pools scattered far apart in some huge city. What? Do you like in some backward communist country that steals all the people's wealth, and gives them just enough of their pay so they don't revolt? Filthy water? They have had technology to purify swimming pool water for what? How many decades? Did the communists shut it off to save a buck? Compared to typical natural lake water, most every swimming pool I have seen, has pretty clear water. Loaded with clorine that sort of burns the eyes after a long swim. But we get used to it. Ever hear of filters?

Can't you even buy one of those little "wading pools" that you just pull out of the gargage and toss in the yard, and fill with a garden hose? Do they have garden hoses in the pitiful place you claim to live?

Originally posted by Fukushi
And that's not all: ,.... the noise,... more then 20decibel shouting and screaming from children and adolecents. A wonder no-one jumped on my back!

The noise? Children are supposed to make noise. Ever hear of "silent" children? That would be like some sort of oximoron. When children are too quiet, you have to check on them to see what mischief they might be up to. My Dad said when we kids were little, he liked the "noisy" toy, because then he would know where we are, and what we are doing.

Originally posted by Fukushi
No,...this was to much for my nerves. No wonder I swam my laps as good as I could and that will be the last time I went to the swimming-pool on a sunny day.

So next time you are going swimming in the rain?

Actually one of the reasons I would go to some public place is to meet people. Our public places aren't so crowded as you claim. Must be a lack-of-poverty thing?

Originally posted by Fukushi
And what's that with more cars? EVEN MORE cars you say? What are you nuts? You are a completa moron!###^#^@§é^!!RAAAAH!!
The roads are stacked with traffic, from sunrise till moonlight!!!! And you are thinking it would be best to TRY to overload them further??!???!!!?? Man, you must be living in a part of the world where there's still some place left: wich doesn't make you the best person to decide wheter or not there should be more traffic than the roads can handle.

Come on. Let's use a little logic. Roads are paid for by the gasoline tax, or at least that is the way they are supposed to be funded. Less cars = less roads = less direct routes and more congesting on existing roads. More cars = more bypass highways, and getting there sooner. More people and cars, means they put in a bypass highway with no traffic lights, that gets me to work faster than I could traveling on city streets with traffic lights every few intersections.

Originally posted by Fukushi
Most Goverments troughout the world are having trouble even creating 200.000 jobs...without letting their unemployment figgures raise offcourse. Let alone create jobs for DOUBLE the people that are living now.

Well there's your problem right there. Where did you ever get the idea that governments "create" jobs? Government can only restrict and tax people. More taxes = less jobs. Entreprenuers, or rich people, or hard working people, are the ones who create jobs. Governments punish people for working with excessive and oppressive taxes, while thieves and beggars aren't required to pay taxes. More people with needs = more work to be done = more jobs. More customers = more jobs. Sometimes business tends to be pro-population growth, as more people = more possible customers. It goes along with the reasons they advertise for customers. If I had some diaper manufacturing plant, do you think I would want people to be fearful and have little "planned" families, or big families? Big families but of course, to insure that they buy my product, and I can expand facilities, and pay my workers well.

Originally posted by Fukushi
No man: you must be out of your head to promote somthing like this: WAR OVER WATER, WAR OVER LAND, WAR OVER RESOURCES

War over water? Check out this website:

www.mallarky.com

This guy rants that in Canada where he lives, water meters are a waste of money, because they increase the "fixed costs" of supplying water to the people, and all the costs of installing water meters for all the people who don't yet have them, plus the costs of hiring meter readers, would cost far more than the water that would be conserved by people paying more, when they use more water. He says that the "fixed costs" of the water utility, are at least 80% of the water's costs, and so conservation saves very little money, all of coming from the less than 20% of the expenses. He claims that investing in a low-flow toilet won't even pay for itself, as the water that it supposedly saves, assuming it doesn't then require multiple flushes, costs so little it will take over 100 years to pay for itself. When considering investments, if something won't pay for itself in under 10 years? (depends on interest/dividend rates), it never will, as one could have just bought stock with the money, and used the interest to pay for the money not saved.

But if there is any real water shortage in some region, perhaps due to too few dams, or too little rain, what about the oceans? They already have water desalination technology in use in countries like Saudi Arabia. The oceans represent an "unlimited" water supply, and much of the world population does happen to live near coastal regions already.

Here's an interesting link about water desalination:

Desalination may be on the way

Originally posted by Fukushi
Because: when there's double the people: there's double the resources needed!!! Where are YOU thinking of???

Yeah, and world population has doubled the people many times, and we end up having all the more resources per capita, and more square feet of space in our homes, and more bathrooms, and now our families are shrinking because we have more and more distractions from having children? I heard something about "television" being a form of "birth control" in India? Something about people having something else to do at night rather than make babies in the dark without electricity? Really? People would rather watch "the idiot tube" than make babies? Unimaginable! I don't imagine TV or electricity will make much difference in my family, as I want all the children God will allow us to have. The TV can be turned off.

Originally posted by Fukushi
Ah man: no offence, probably you will attack me now on personal grounds before taking my points into consideration,...

Now why should I do that, when I already have so many good arguments? Like all the additional people who could enjoy living? One of the best things people could do for future generations, is to have lots of children. Otherwise, how will those future generations get to be born? There are some 6 billion+ reasons why world population needs to be at least as large as it is.

Originally posted by Fukushi
even when you look at those points I make,...you will not most likely change you mind on it.

But take it from a guy who knows what's it like: living in a box with cars and noise and agression and so on and on,....
if I where to make you a list of counterpoints: you wouldn't believe it to be the truth.

Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. I have no objection to urban sprawl, or the people spreading out if they feel they need more space for their growing families. There is yet plenty of empty land we can grow into. Spreading out is the "solution" promoted in the Bible, way back in Genesis, as Abraham and Lot's tribes decided to spread out rather than have contentions over grazing lands and other resources. Nowhere in the Bible is anti-life "birth control" ever advocated. It was considered a great blessing to have children, and it was barrenness that was considered some sort of curse by the people.

If we really care about the people and our neighbors like Jesus said we should, then shouldn't we merely urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, and welcome everybody? I had a pastor who was reading the Bible years ago, discovered he needed to have his vasectomy reversed when he couldn't "afford" the 3 children he had, and went on to have 5 more children. By the time I met him, he had somehow found his niche, his business became quite successful, he had a big custom-built house for his big family of 8 children, he added a swimming pool in his backyard, but he didn't seem to like to admit he was rich. He was almost practically a leader in the community, and organized much pro-life or pro-Christian activity among the various Churches in the area. Our Church there was really big on big families and home schooling, as the government monopoly schools have jettisoned family values long ago. We were also big on politics and helping to elect statesmen with values who are pro-life, and not likely to raise our taxes. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the "environmental" wackos that do much anything to accomodate growing human populations, but mainly the developers and entreprenuers who look for problems, and make money solving them and building the stuff the people need. Not the enviro wacko whiners, and not the tax-and-spend liberal politicians. Often also known as DemocRATS in the United States. I would much rather see the people stacked up in tall buildings if ever need be, to make room for more people, than have some oppressive government trying to tell us to not have "too many" children. I would much rather get used to living on some severely "overcrowded" planet, than to live on some sparsely populated planet that had little regard for the great value of human life. I like people in general, at least when they are well behaved. I have nothing against having many neighbors living close by, if they are good neighbors, or having once heard the neighbors having sex through the thin apartment walls. Glad they are enjoying themselves. (Hope they are doing it right, using no form of anti-life "protection" against babies.) But I have since moved to a house with all the more room to have an "unplanned," hopefully large, family, just as soon as I can find a wife.

Here's a website that gives some great explanation of why contraceptives have been nearly the worst invention ever, of man:

http://www.cyfl.ca/whynotcontraception.html

 

[Pronatalist]

Pro-population growth is very much an "educated" view.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
pronatalist,
Unfortunately, many people in developing countries share your undereducated backwards view.

They have 10 or 12 children who grow up in miserable poverty without any education so they can in turn have a dozen kids each. Hense the issue which led me to post this thread.

Justed wanted to mention that I have been to college, and am fairly well read on the population issue. It was a factor that motivated me to become involved in the pro-life movement, when I felt that God was showing me that

1. There are radicals out there who want to take away MY rights to have children.

2. There are radicals out there trying to devalue human life, which can't be good for anybody.

I have probably a couple of bookshelves full of books pro and against population growth, and about related issues like abortion.

But I find the gloom and doom pessimism about human population growth to be totally unfounded and oversimplistic. (Julian Simon's book "The Ultimate Resource (people, but of course) discredits just about every negative population theory, even though I don't agree with all of his logic. For example, I wouldn't make absurd statements that human population growth can go on forever, but rather for the forseeable future. Which fits my Biblical worldview nicely.)

Rather, I see that human population growth is helping to accelerate the growth of technology, and has led to many innovations that make the quality of life better for people.

People are more like the honey bees that produce way more honey than they can ever hope to use, and have plenty to share, than they are like parasites. Especially people with good family values. Surely it is logical to be positive and favor one's own kind?

 

[fadingCaptain]

pro,
What do you think about my example? Do you think someone living in poverty should have 12 kids? Or should they focus on seeing that 1 gets a quality education and is well provided for?

Judging by what you have written so far, it would seem you think more is always better. I think quality of life should be raised, not quantity of life.

 

[Fukushi]

Pronatelist,...

http://www.overpopulation.org/

you urgently need to reed up on your archaic bookshelfs.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Do you think someone living in poverty should have 12 kids? Or should they focus on seeing that 1 gets a quality education and is well provided for?

12 kids means 12 potential sources of income... in most of the poverty stricken areas of the world, child labor is depended upon for subsitance for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the corporate investors that are willing to exploit the cheap labor.

Right or wrong, this is a fact of the developing world. If a poor parent only had 1 child, the chances of that child going to college are still next to zero.