True in developing countries.
I was actually thinking in my quote of people in poverty in the US. In these cases you still see high birth rates when there is no monetary incentive to have more children.
The population problem
- Thread starter fadingCaptain
- Start date
I was actually thinking in my quote of people in poverty in the US. In these cases you still see high birth rates when there is no monetary incentive to have more children.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Why the poor (and rich) tend to have large families.
I think poor people tend to have large families, because they lack much any disincentive to having many children. I think they pretty well know what makes babies, and that's why they do it. They refuse to use contraceptives because they want children and they want to get pregnant. As they say,
"Children are their only wealth."
Or,
"The rich get richer and the poor get babies."
But, I would also add that the rich should also lack disincentive to have large families. Who, but the rich, could best "afford" a large family?
Rather, I believe that having many children is a great blessing to both the poor and the rich, and people should have the freedom to become richer so they can better support their growing families. Having many children should never be a priviledge just for the rich. God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, was to humanity in general. For most anybody who is married, it should apply, and imply that couples not use "preventative measures" to limit family size. No anti-life contraceptives, nor "natural family planning" or rhythm for "good Catholics." Rather, just trust God for the right number of children to have.
"The more the merrier."
I think poor people tend to have large families, because they lack much any disincentive to having many children. I think they pretty well know what makes babies, and that's why they do it. They refuse to use contraceptives because they want children and they want to get pregnant. As they say,
"Children are their only wealth."
Or,
"The rich get richer and the poor get babies."
But, I would also add that the rich should also lack disincentive to have large families. Who, but the rich, could best "afford" a large family?
Rather, I believe that having many children is a great blessing to both the poor and the rich, and people should have the freedom to become richer so they can better support their growing families. Having many children should never be a priviledge just for the rich. God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, was to humanity in general. For most anybody who is married, it should apply, and imply that couples not use "preventative measures" to limit family size. No anti-life contraceptives, nor "natural family planning" or rhythm for "good Catholics." Rather, just trust God for the right number of children to have.
"The more the merrier."
Um ....
I'm looking at the topic link right now and it says the world population is ... 2,147,483,647.
Did ... did I miss a nuclear war or something? Let me guess ... a comet strike?
That much said, I do actually agree that there is a population issue to contend with, and in accordance with a philosophical theme I've expounded on of late, I propose that the solution is to legalize murder.
There's no objective reason why murder is wrong. So let's legalize and let the strong survive. In the meantime, you'll find me (or not, if I have my way) trekking north through the remnants of Canada, because you know that Americans, free to murder, are going to kill their neighbors and co-workers first. I might kill someone on my way into the mountains just to know what it feels like; it was enough of a reason for Crowley, says the legend.
Legalize murder. Free the natural urge! Strengthen the gene pool! Protect humanity against endangerment through overpopulation!
Blame Canada! Bomb China! We'll see how "other cheek" the Christians really are. A million-fag army takes to suburbia in an orgiastic parade of vengeance. The NRA marching on Washington, failing amid a hail of friendly fire. Africa won't notice the difference! By God, let's get Unreal!
Why not? Aside from having to get off our asses and do something to avoid dying?
It'll present a good short-term solution.
:m:,
Tiassa
I'm looking at the topic link right now and it says the world population is ... 2,147,483,647.
Did ... did I miss a nuclear war or something? Let me guess ... a comet strike?
That much said, I do actually agree that there is a population issue to contend with, and in accordance with a philosophical theme I've expounded on of late, I propose that the solution is to legalize murder.
There's no objective reason why murder is wrong. So let's legalize and let the strong survive. In the meantime, you'll find me (or not, if I have my way) trekking north through the remnants of Canada, because you know that Americans, free to murder, are going to kill their neighbors and co-workers first. I might kill someone on my way into the mountains just to know what it feels like; it was enough of a reason for Crowley, says the legend.
Legalize murder. Free the natural urge! Strengthen the gene pool! Protect humanity against endangerment through overpopulation!
Blame Canada! Bomb China! We'll see how "other cheek" the Christians really are. A million-fag army takes to suburbia in an orgiastic parade of vengeance. The NRA marching on Washington, failing amid a hail of friendly fire. Africa won't notice the difference! By God, let's get Unreal!
Why not? Aside from having to get off our asses and do something to avoid dying?
It'll present a good short-term solution.
:m:,
Tiassa
Tiassa,
The link shows me nearly 6 and a half billion!?! Strange. :bugeye:
Anyway, if we are to legalize murder we better give everyone a gun first so we can all have a level playing field.
I say a better solution is to kill everyone immediately with an IQ under 100. There will be several tests and if you score under 100 on all of them you are surely an idiot and therefore exterminated.
The link shows me nearly 6 and a half billion!?! Strange. :bugeye:
Anyway, if we are to legalize murder we better give everyone a gun first so we can all have a level playing field.
I say a better solution is to kill everyone immediately with an IQ under 100. There will be several tests and if you score under 100 on all of them you are surely an idiot and therefore exterminated.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
The futility of population control. Serves no purpose.
The problem is that we are all flawed, or sinful.
Eugenics, or trying to discriminate against some people or decide who should be allowed to breed, doesn't do much anything at all, to get people to behave better. In fact, population control would seem to be the excuse for most any sin or injustice imaginable.
If we could get rid of such bad behaviors as racism and littering, what would it matter if the population was quite large? What do I care how numerous my neighbors are, if they are no threat to me? I don't mind if the planet is teeming with people, if there is a place for me, and people have respect for me. I have no problem with people living close together, or close to me, if they are friendly. If they are mean, we can't get far enough away.
Unfortunately, "intelligently cleansing" seems to have little to do with limiting births. Actually, those unselfish enough to have many children, those who love children enough to keep having more if they can, probably make the best parents to raise children anyway.
Promoting the social graces, is far more relevant than trying to prevent the births of people we don't even know yet. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume most any baby may grow up to make great contributions to society, as that is possible, isn't it?
The problem is that we are all flawed, or sinful.
Eugenics, or trying to discriminate against some people or decide who should be allowed to breed, doesn't do much anything at all, to get people to behave better. In fact, population control would seem to be the excuse for most any sin or injustice imaginable.
If we could get rid of such bad behaviors as racism and littering, what would it matter if the population was quite large? What do I care how numerous my neighbors are, if they are no threat to me? I don't mind if the planet is teeming with people, if there is a place for me, and people have respect for me. I have no problem with people living close together, or close to me, if they are friendly. If they are mean, we can't get far enough away.
Unfortunately, "intelligently cleansing" seems to have little to do with limiting births. Actually, those unselfish enough to have many children, those who love children enough to keep having more if they can, probably make the best parents to raise children anyway.
Promoting the social graces, is far more relevant than trying to prevent the births of people we don't even know yet. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume most any baby may grow up to make great contributions to society, as that is possible, isn't it?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Celebrate the birth of baby "7 billion".
My first guess on the wrong population count, is that that person has a dead clock battery on their computer? The year and date could very well be a factor in setting the population clock. I think I heard that browsers can read a computer's clock it is running on.
Isn't nearly 6 and a half billion a little high? I think that population clock is "high" compared to others, which obviously can only be an estimate. Of course population counts are "high" for the whole world, because they want to count every person in the world. Why? People don't exactly live on some "global" level but in their communities, which comparitively don't generally seem all that populous. Just because we have airplanes and satelites, doesn't mean we need to now think all the more on "global" levels. The earth is just as huge as it always has been, even though modern technologies make it seem smaller.
But considering that the world reached 6 billion, supposedly if we can trust the figures of the population bean counters, 4 years ago, and that the world adds another billion in just over a decade, and that they probably arbitrary didn't count the babies growing in the womb, and nations often miss counting many people, and some rely on estimates rather than more accurate censuses, I would not be surprised if the world already had more than 6.5 billion.
But we should look forward to and celebrate the birth of baby "7 billion" when he or she comes, as another precious human life, and great progress for humanity.
Wait a minute. You can't make policies to "solve" problems that haven't even been properly diagnosed. Who says that there is "too many" people? How do they know? Who died and made the self-appointed "experts" God?
If we get rid of all the people with IQs under 100, then who will we blame for our problems? People with IQs under 105?
Didn't Adolf Hitler already try something similar? Did it work? Of course not. It couldn't possibly work, because the Nazis wouldn't admit to their shortcomings, allowing no correct diagnosis of their social maladies, nor any correction, and they would have never run out of scapegoats to blame their problems that they created themselves, on.
Don't a lot of people with IQs under 100, have guns? Do you really think they will cooperate with some genocidal plan that leaves no possible place for them? I already know I won't have any place in some manmade utopia hairbrain scheme, as I always tend to ask too many question, that might tend to make the power mongers nervous. So I want no part of it.
And there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance means simply not knowing. Stupidity is refusing to use the good sense that God gave such a person. Ignorance is then easier to work with, as one who doesn't know, can learn. Or maybe they can just stay out of the way? (Not everybody needs to know how to program computers, in order for computers to be useful to most people. Because I know how, might mean other people might not need to know how, as someday I might get the high pay for my skills.) Stupid people are often unteachable. I suspect that many people with low IQs might be rather harmless and still have something to contribute.
If we are going to get rid of some of the stupid people, let's start with those who have been convicted of some heinous crime. Not people who don't meet some arbitary line of some possibly flawed IQ test?
Some episode of, was it Twighlight Zone?, told of some big test that was coming up that would decide most everything of some child's future. The big day was coming, and finally the kid took the test. His parents received word that he had to be put to death, because he did "too well" on the test. Apparently the intelligensia of the society, could tolerate no rivals who might be able to figure out their schemes and expose them? Something to think about. If we get rid of the stupid people, will we somehow discover that some people are "too smart" too? Will anybody long be safe? Who knows where the arbitrary line might be drawn tomorrow, if it isn't attached to some firm anchor, like the truth of God's Word, the Bible.
At least the Death Penalty for criminals convicted of some crime like murder, has a Biblical basis.
Genesis 9:6 ___Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Tiassa,
The link shows me nearly 6 and a half billion!?! Strange. :bugeye:
Anyway, if we are to legalize murder we better give everyone a gun first so we can all have a level playing field.
My first guess on the wrong population count, is that that person has a dead clock battery on their computer? The year and date could very well be a factor in setting the population clock. I think I heard that browsers can read a computer's clock it is running on.
Isn't nearly 6 and a half billion a little high? I think that population clock is "high" compared to others, which obviously can only be an estimate. Of course population counts are "high" for the whole world, because they want to count every person in the world. Why? People don't exactly live on some "global" level but in their communities, which comparitively don't generally seem all that populous. Just because we have airplanes and satelites, doesn't mean we need to now think all the more on "global" levels. The earth is just as huge as it always has been, even though modern technologies make it seem smaller.
But considering that the world reached 6 billion, supposedly if we can trust the figures of the population bean counters, 4 years ago, and that the world adds another billion in just over a decade, and that they probably arbitrary didn't count the babies growing in the womb, and nations often miss counting many people, and some rely on estimates rather than more accurate censuses, I would not be surprised if the world already had more than 6.5 billion.
But we should look forward to and celebrate the birth of baby "7 billion" when he or she comes, as another precious human life, and great progress for humanity.
Originally posted by fadingCaptain
I say a better solution is to kill everyone immediately with an IQ under 100. There will be several tests and if you score under 100 on all of them you are surely an idiot and therefore exterminated.
Wait a minute. You can't make policies to "solve" problems that haven't even been properly diagnosed. Who says that there is "too many" people? How do they know? Who died and made the self-appointed "experts" God?
If we get rid of all the people with IQs under 100, then who will we blame for our problems? People with IQs under 105?
Didn't Adolf Hitler already try something similar? Did it work? Of course not. It couldn't possibly work, because the Nazis wouldn't admit to their shortcomings, allowing no correct diagnosis of their social maladies, nor any correction, and they would have never run out of scapegoats to blame their problems that they created themselves, on.
Don't a lot of people with IQs under 100, have guns? Do you really think they will cooperate with some genocidal plan that leaves no possible place for them? I already know I won't have any place in some manmade utopia hairbrain scheme, as I always tend to ask too many question, that might tend to make the power mongers nervous. So I want no part of it.
And there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance means simply not knowing. Stupidity is refusing to use the good sense that God gave such a person. Ignorance is then easier to work with, as one who doesn't know, can learn. Or maybe they can just stay out of the way? (Not everybody needs to know how to program computers, in order for computers to be useful to most people. Because I know how, might mean other people might not need to know how, as someday I might get the high pay for my skills.) Stupid people are often unteachable. I suspect that many people with low IQs might be rather harmless and still have something to contribute.
If we are going to get rid of some of the stupid people, let's start with those who have been convicted of some heinous crime. Not people who don't meet some arbitary line of some possibly flawed IQ test?
Some episode of, was it Twighlight Zone?, told of some big test that was coming up that would decide most everything of some child's future. The big day was coming, and finally the kid took the test. His parents received word that he had to be put to death, because he did "too well" on the test. Apparently the intelligensia of the society, could tolerate no rivals who might be able to figure out their schemes and expose them? Something to think about. If we get rid of the stupid people, will we somehow discover that some people are "too smart" too? Will anybody long be safe? Who knows where the arbitrary line might be drawn tomorrow, if it isn't attached to some firm anchor, like the truth of God's Word, the Bible.
At least the Death Penalty for criminals convicted of some crime like murder, has a Biblical basis.
Genesis 9:6 ___Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Poor people shouldn't be expected to give up their "only wealth."
What a tricky question? But I know better.
Did you notice that your question implies an assumption that is difficult to prove? That having many children makes people poor? But how many people would sell their children for money? Children are worth far more than money.
It is hardly an "either/or" question. But rather a "both/neither" question. If people have so little faith that they are fearful to have more than one children, that also serves as an obstacle to gaining wealth. As they are unwilling to make any investments or take any chances. They have a poverty mentality that tends to keep them poor.
Is it better to be a realist, or an idealist? I think an idealist, because an idealist might dream big dreams and accomplish 10% of what he dreams. A realist, might dream of nothing, and accomplish 100% of nothing. In this case, 10% of something, is clearly more than 100% of nothing. Realists probably do little or nothing to change or improve the world. It's the dreamers who lead to change and improvement. Putting a man on the moon, wasn't "realistic" when it was the sci-fi dream stuff of comic books.
Yes, to answer your question, one living in poverty should go ahead and have 12 kids, if God gives them 12 kids, because God might also have plans to reward their faith with more wealth too, if only they would receive the children. If they focus on hoarding their little wealth on only a single child, they probably won't even have enough to send that child to college.
2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
What does college have to do with anything, anyway? Isn't that getting "the cart before the horse?" Children not conceived can't go to college. They must be born first. If the money doesn't become available to the parents, it might come from other sources, or the child might have to work or borrow to go to college. But the child or children, are still better off than had they not been born at all.
You can't have "quality of life" without sanctity of life, which may also very well lead to "quantity of life." More isn't always better in everything, but with humans, "quality of life" tends to go together with "quantity of life." As having children is one of the most fulfilling things people can do, and the respect for others that goes along with people being likely to have good "quality of life," also goes along with welcoming families to grow large. My old Pastor observed that people who love Jesus, tend to have large families, as Jesus loved children. People with good faith, are less likely to worry that their family might grow "too big" for God to meet their needs.
What a tricky question? But I know better.
Did you notice that your question implies an assumption that is difficult to prove? That having many children makes people poor? But how many people would sell their children for money? Children are worth far more than money.
It is hardly an "either/or" question. But rather a "both/neither" question. If people have so little faith that they are fearful to have more than one children, that also serves as an obstacle to gaining wealth. As they are unwilling to make any investments or take any chances. They have a poverty mentality that tends to keep them poor.
Is it better to be a realist, or an idealist? I think an idealist, because an idealist might dream big dreams and accomplish 10% of what he dreams. A realist, might dream of nothing, and accomplish 100% of nothing. In this case, 10% of something, is clearly more than 100% of nothing. Realists probably do little or nothing to change or improve the world. It's the dreamers who lead to change and improvement. Putting a man on the moon, wasn't "realistic" when it was the sci-fi dream stuff of comic books.
Yes, to answer your question, one living in poverty should go ahead and have 12 kids, if God gives them 12 kids, because God might also have plans to reward their faith with more wealth too, if only they would receive the children. If they focus on hoarding their little wealth on only a single child, they probably won't even have enough to send that child to college.
2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
What does college have to do with anything, anyway? Isn't that getting "the cart before the horse?" Children not conceived can't go to college. They must be born first. If the money doesn't become available to the parents, it might come from other sources, or the child might have to work or borrow to go to college. But the child or children, are still better off than had they not been born at all.
You can't have "quality of life" without sanctity of life, which may also very well lead to "quantity of life." More isn't always better in everything, but with humans, "quality of life" tends to go together with "quantity of life." As having children is one of the most fulfilling things people can do, and the respect for others that goes along with people being likely to have good "quality of life," also goes along with welcoming families to grow large. My old Pastor observed that people who love Jesus, tend to have large families, as Jesus loved children. People with good faith, are less likely to worry that their family might grow "too big" for God to meet their needs.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Not just another liberal anti-life website? I have much better links!
Who was that post addressed to? Me? All? Anybody?
I have already seen that website, and it is too liberal and negative.
A much more balanced website, is www.overpopulation.com
Here's another cool website that advocates large families
www.quiverfull.com
Who was that post addressed to? Me? All? Anybody?
I have already seen that website, and it is too liberal and negative.
A much more balanced website, is www.overpopulation.com
Here's another cool website that advocates large families
www.quiverfull.com
Not yet, not yet
"Company officials met today with the union strike leaders, who protest the implementation of droid labor. Recognizing the potential of droid labor, company management had the strike leaders taken out back and shot ...."
:m:,
Tiassa
PS on Edit: I was so amused with myself and the legalize murder bit that I gave it some more serious (ha!) consideration: "An extreme proposal?"
Not yet, not yet. We need to get the droids in place, first.
"Company officials met today with the union strike leaders, who protest the implementation of droid labor. Recognizing the potential of droid labor, company management had the strike leaders taken out back and shot ...."
:m:,
Tiassa
PS on Edit: I was so amused with myself and the legalize murder bit that I gave it some more serious (ha!) consideration: "An extreme proposal?"
Last edited:
Thinking too hard
Pronatalist
Actually, you're thinking too hard. The user is using a beta browser that most likely has faults running as deeply as basic CSS. The clock works fine in IE. (What's funny is that Sciforums doesn't.)
999 times out of 1000, if it's not the user, it's the software.
:m:,
Tiassa
Pronatalist
Actually, you're thinking too hard. The user is using a beta browser that most likely has faults running as deeply as basic CSS. The clock works fine in IE. (What's funny is that Sciforums doesn't.)
999 times out of 1000, if it's not the user, it's the software.
:m:,
Tiassa
invisibleone
Registered Senior Member
Don't worry. . there are sure to be new plagues to kill us off. . .just take a glance at history (e.g. bubonic plague, influenza, AIDS). and if diseases don't kill us, we can count on either geological disasters, or our advanced nuclear technology. Sweet dreams.
kajolishot
Registered Senior Member
My money is on our own species wiping itself away.
Unless that evil Sun blows us up.
Unless that evil Sun blows us up.
hah, don't worry about that: GM food will overwhelm and polute the world's crops and no plants or anybody will be resistent anymore, strange deseases will emerge, Allergies ect,...Food will not be available anymore: since you have to buy your corn-seeds from the only-one firm that sels sterile seeds to the world year after year.
On top of that: economic warfare and trade wars are raining down on the people of this wolrd in a time (now) where they are already experiencing heavy torubles because of floods, famine, deseases,...war, violence, ignorence,.....
But don't worry: here's the deal:
A small group of people will continue to increase their wealth,...(the others will see greater poverty)
More people will be born, more deaths will be the inevidable concequence of this.
On top of that: economic warfare and trade wars are raining down on the people of this wolrd in a time (now) where they are already experiencing heavy torubles because of floods, famine, deseases,...war, violence, ignorence,.....
But don't worry: here's the deal:
A small group of people will continue to increase their wealth,...(the others will see greater poverty)
More people will be born, more deaths will be the inevidable concequence of this.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Large families are good. Fill the land if God allows us to.
Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Just how much space do you claim to need?
If humans were hypothetically "overruning its living area and resources," would you volunteer to lessen the population by ceasing to live? Me neither. I want to live regardless. And so would my children. So why not make the best of things and seek to colonize other planets?
But then humans appear to be too lazy and selfish to populate to such levels, so why do I even have to answer this question? Isn't it sort of irrelevant?
I would much rather live on an "overcrowded" planet than on one with no people. Hey wait a minute? How does one live on a planet with no people?
Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Just how much space do you claim to need?
If humans were hypothetically "overruning its living area and resources," would you volunteer to lessen the population by ceasing to live? Me neither. I want to live regardless. And so would my children. So why not make the best of things and seek to colonize other planets?
But then humans appear to be too lazy and selfish to populate to such levels, so why do I even have to answer this question? Isn't it sort of irrelevant?
I would much rather live on an "overcrowded" planet than on one with no people. Hey wait a minute? How does one live on a planet with no people?
"Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Just how much space do you claim to need?"
Food, recreation. You do know how much we have reduced the biosphere by? We've already wiped out the Canada grand banks fisheries, the north sea is going the same way, Africa and India are following.
"If humans were hypothetically "overruning its living area and resources," would you volunteer to lessen the population by ceasing to live? Me neither. I want to live regardless. And so would my children. So why not make the best of things and seek to colonize other planets?"
Your missing the point here which is that if we are running over our limits, then the simple solution is to have less children. Thereby lessening the population not by murder or euthenasia, but by prevention of peopel being born, thereby not having to bring them into an overcrowded world. Besides, colonising other planets is not a solution to overpopulation unless you can bend the laws of physics and transport tens of millions at once.
"But then humans appear to be too lazy and selfish to populate to such levels, so why do I even have to answer this question? Isn't it sort of irrelevant?"
Ye whit? we seem to have been lazy and selfish enough to get to 6.5 billion or so in a couple hundred years. Without any restraint that oculd be well over 10 billion in a century. whats your preffered density?
"I would much rather live on an "overcrowded" planet than on one with no people. Hey wait a minute? How does one live on a planet with no people? "
Poor joke. Ever heard of the studies where they put rats into cages, and beyond a certain population density, they started hurting each other, doign nasty things, having abortions etc. This all happened due to overcrowding, they were being crowded in at a density similar to our large cities.
Food, recreation. You do know how much we have reduced the biosphere by? We've already wiped out the Canada grand banks fisheries, the north sea is going the same way, Africa and India are following.
"If humans were hypothetically "overruning its living area and resources," would you volunteer to lessen the population by ceasing to live? Me neither. I want to live regardless. And so would my children. So why not make the best of things and seek to colonize other planets?"
Your missing the point here which is that if we are running over our limits, then the simple solution is to have less children. Thereby lessening the population not by murder or euthenasia, but by prevention of peopel being born, thereby not having to bring them into an overcrowded world. Besides, colonising other planets is not a solution to overpopulation unless you can bend the laws of physics and transport tens of millions at once.
"But then humans appear to be too lazy and selfish to populate to such levels, so why do I even have to answer this question? Isn't it sort of irrelevant?"
Ye whit? we seem to have been lazy and selfish enough to get to 6.5 billion or so in a couple hundred years. Without any restraint that oculd be well over 10 billion in a century. whats your preffered density?
"I would much rather live on an "overcrowded" planet than on one with no people. Hey wait a minute? How does one live on a planet with no people? "
Poor joke. Ever heard of the studies where they put rats into cages, and beyond a certain population density, they started hurting each other, doign nasty things, having abortions etc. This all happened due to overcrowding, they were being crowded in at a density similar to our large cities.
About Lazyness and colonising other worlds,...:
Did you know the fact that that F*ck*n FriGGin WaR jUsT cOsT aBoUt $200 Billion!!!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.03E.irq.war.200B.p.htm
http://www.costofwar.com/
http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/MattWeb/Courses/CEP_909_FA02/CivilWar/economic_cost_of_war.asp
Now: the point wich I want to emphesize is this: look at the costs and compare it to the cost of the shuttle program, and the friction of buget they get.
then compare a GOOD working space elevator, wich would revolutionarise the way in wich we decent and rise to heavens,...
and compare it with the costs that such a device (develloping+costs making it happen) would cost.
= only a meager 20$Billion.
Now: it's TOTALLY clear wich way the administration chooses this world to go to. Wich direction it takes and I can assure you: It aint going UP!
And this enrages me.
here some links for you to read up and marvel and awe, since that's what we will be doing for the next centurie thx to this fucking un-nessesary f*cking war.
http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2188107.stm
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_001226.html
http://www.highliftsystems.com/
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/nanotech.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm
Did you know the fact that that F*ck*n FriGGin WaR jUsT cOsT aBoUt $200 Billion!!!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.03E.irq.war.200B.p.htm
http://www.costofwar.com/
http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/MattWeb/Courses/CEP_909_FA02/CivilWar/economic_cost_of_war.asp
Now: the point wich I want to emphesize is this: look at the costs and compare it to the cost of the shuttle program, and the friction of buget they get.
then compare a GOOD working space elevator, wich would revolutionarise the way in wich we decent and rise to heavens,...
and compare it with the costs that such a device (develloping+costs making it happen) would cost.
= only a meager 20$Billion.
Now: it's TOTALLY clear wich way the administration chooses this world to go to. Wich direction it takes and I can assure you: It aint going UP!
And this enrages me.
here some links for you to read up and marvel and awe, since that's what we will be doing for the next centurie thx to this fucking un-nessesary f*cking war.
http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2188107.stm
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_001226.html
http://www.highliftsystems.com/
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/nanotech.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm
Last edited:
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Humans are social creatures and can survive and thrive at high densities.
Recreation? What? You can't enjoy a picnic, if you see other people in the park?
There is such a thing as fish farming, isn't there? I thought "hunting and gathering" (mere uncultivated fishing) had already been assumed to be somewhat obsolete?
And why are the people already living assumed to be of greater value than those to come? Why discriminate against the preborn, just because they aren't here yet to vote? Any gain in human population benefits so many people who could not have lived otherwise, it should be worth some "crowding" to welcome them. There is also the matter of so many people wanting to enjoy sex, and wanting children, who might not be magically convinced to stop loving their children, and so to have less. One can't propose lessening human population, without having the responsibility to consider what draconian measures that might entail, and whether "the cure is worse than the disease." And many people probably wouldn't mind living in a more densely populated world, considering all the people who still move from the "uncrowded" countryside to the "crowded" cities.
How do you know that it will forever be impossible to transport tens of millions at once? And couldn't colonizing other planets be more realistic to allow the few people who can't stand living among the crowds to escape, rather than colonizing other worlds to ease population density? Even if everybody who wanted to leave to go to less crowded worlds, could easily do so, wouldn't the earth perhaps still grow more "crowded," as many people choose to live in "crowded" regions rather than move to the "middle of nowhere?" I don't see any big rush of the people to distribute themselves uniformly accoss the earth, trying to get as far away from their neighbors as possible. Rather, we still obviously prefer to cluster in cities and near coastal regions.
So? Why is over 10 billion any "worse" than 6.5 billion? What's wrong with some success of the human kind? Life would be much the same. Not much perceptionally would change. Like people would really notice if cities became a little more numerous? I figure the earth could probably hold 200 billion or more, so why worry if we rush pellmell past 30 billion? That many people could easily fit on the earth. Haven't you heard those "everybody could live in Texas" analogies? There is enough land, just in Texas, for the entire world to build their homes there. Don't know why anybody would want to, but perhaps it is more "doable" than some radicals would care to admit.
I prefer a density in which I and all my children are welcome. And where the sanctity of life is respected. Our current density is like a few liberals whining that one lone passenger should be all that is admitted on some big bus or airplane, lest they can't lie across every seat, or might have to endure a little talking or noise. Why those spoiled little brats with no vision or imagination? Why should I care how many people there are out there somewhere outside my home, as long as they leave me alone? I don't mind a very high density, and people living in highrises, to make room for all the more people, as long as the neighbors are friendly and harmless.
Yeah, and what a farce, and rigged experiments they were. Humans are not rats. Every hear of the studies of "crowded" monkeys, in which they developed more social strategies, and groomed each other or themselves, to make themselves more attractive and avoid conflict? And I find it highly unlikely that the rats had as much space as people do in large cities. Rather, they knew what outcome they were looking for, and rigged the experiment to achieve it. Did the rats have construction engineers to make their buildings taller? Did they have TV or books or video games to serve as distractions from the cares of life? Did they have soundproofed walls? What do rats have to do with humans anyway? Aren't rats like wild, uncivilized "animals?" Rather, it is not a little "crowding" or accomodation of people that is "uncivilized," but rather a society that allows abortion clinics to operate, without even giving the innocent babies a fair trial before their execution.
Aren't humans going to continue breeding, perhaps no matter what? Maybe more sluggishly due to selfishness and laziness and distractions, or whatever "demographic transition" theory (or is it "contraceptive imperilism?"). Shouldn't we make plans to accomodate the population increase and celebrate all those births and the success of humanity, or look to God for answers and be willing to humble ourselves and submit to God and trust his destiny for us? Rather than plan for failure and mediocrity? What's so wrong with going forward?
Recreation? What? You can't enjoy a picnic, if you see other people in the park?
There is such a thing as fish farming, isn't there? I thought "hunting and gathering" (mere uncultivated fishing) had already been assumed to be somewhat obsolete?
And why are the people already living assumed to be of greater value than those to come? Why discriminate against the preborn, just because they aren't here yet to vote? Any gain in human population benefits so many people who could not have lived otherwise, it should be worth some "crowding" to welcome them. There is also the matter of so many people wanting to enjoy sex, and wanting children, who might not be magically convinced to stop loving their children, and so to have less. One can't propose lessening human population, without having the responsibility to consider what draconian measures that might entail, and whether "the cure is worse than the disease." And many people probably wouldn't mind living in a more densely populated world, considering all the people who still move from the "uncrowded" countryside to the "crowded" cities.
How do you know that it will forever be impossible to transport tens of millions at once? And couldn't colonizing other planets be more realistic to allow the few people who can't stand living among the crowds to escape, rather than colonizing other worlds to ease population density? Even if everybody who wanted to leave to go to less crowded worlds, could easily do so, wouldn't the earth perhaps still grow more "crowded," as many people choose to live in "crowded" regions rather than move to the "middle of nowhere?" I don't see any big rush of the people to distribute themselves uniformly accoss the earth, trying to get as far away from their neighbors as possible. Rather, we still obviously prefer to cluster in cities and near coastal regions.
So? Why is over 10 billion any "worse" than 6.5 billion? What's wrong with some success of the human kind? Life would be much the same. Not much perceptionally would change. Like people would really notice if cities became a little more numerous? I figure the earth could probably hold 200 billion or more, so why worry if we rush pellmell past 30 billion? That many people could easily fit on the earth. Haven't you heard those "everybody could live in Texas" analogies? There is enough land, just in Texas, for the entire world to build their homes there. Don't know why anybody would want to, but perhaps it is more "doable" than some radicals would care to admit.
I prefer a density in which I and all my children are welcome. And where the sanctity of life is respected. Our current density is like a few liberals whining that one lone passenger should be all that is admitted on some big bus or airplane, lest they can't lie across every seat, or might have to endure a little talking or noise. Why those spoiled little brats with no vision or imagination? Why should I care how many people there are out there somewhere outside my home, as long as they leave me alone? I don't mind a very high density, and people living in highrises, to make room for all the more people, as long as the neighbors are friendly and harmless.
Yeah, and what a farce, and rigged experiments they were. Humans are not rats. Every hear of the studies of "crowded" monkeys, in which they developed more social strategies, and groomed each other or themselves, to make themselves more attractive and avoid conflict? And I find it highly unlikely that the rats had as much space as people do in large cities. Rather, they knew what outcome they were looking for, and rigged the experiment to achieve it. Did the rats have construction engineers to make their buildings taller? Did they have TV or books or video games to serve as distractions from the cares of life? Did they have soundproofed walls? What do rats have to do with humans anyway? Aren't rats like wild, uncivilized "animals?" Rather, it is not a little "crowding" or accomodation of people that is "uncivilized," but rather a society that allows abortion clinics to operate, without even giving the innocent babies a fair trial before their execution.
Aren't humans going to continue breeding, perhaps no matter what? Maybe more sluggishly due to selfishness and laziness and distractions, or whatever "demographic transition" theory (or is it "contraceptive imperilism?"). Shouldn't we make plans to accomodate the population increase and celebrate all those births and the success of humanity, or look to God for answers and be willing to humble ourselves and submit to God and trust his destiny for us? Rather than plan for failure and mediocrity? What's so wrong with going forward?
"Recreation? What? You can't enjoy a picnic, if you see other people in the park?
There is such a thing as fish farming, isn't there? I thought "hunting and gathering" (mere uncultivated fishing) had already been assumed to be somewhat obsolete?"
Your being obtuse. recreaction is not spoiled by seeing otehr people, thats just anotehr land use i am suggesting we have changed things to suit ourselves for. AS for fish farming, anyone with any sense sees it has no future. For starters, the artifical environemnt is bad for the fishes health. Secondly, you have to feed salmon etc, on other fish! It takes something like 4 tonnes of them to feed one tonne of salmon. THereby stripping the seas of edible fish even faster.
"And why are the people already living assumed to be of greater value than those to come? Why discriminate against the preborn, just because they aren't here yet to vote? Any gain in human population benefits so many people who could not have lived otherwise, it should be worth some "crowding" to welcome them."
But you are assuming that we can infinitely crowd ourselves, which we cannot. The permitting of many more births might push us over the edge, ro at any rate increases misery for peopel already crowded. Secondly, "preborn" what is this term? Iit is not in any lexuicon of speech i know of. The point is that you cannot make a judgement of hte value of any life until after it is lived. Why do you see living as a benefit? How can you argue that something that doesnt exist might yet want to exist?
"So? Why is over 10 billion any "worse" than 6.5 billion? "
Thus speaks the blind man. go live in mexico city or calcutta for a while.
"One can't propose lessening human population, without having the responsibility to consider what draconian measures that might entail, and whether "the cure is worse than the disease." And many people probably wouldn't mind living in a more densely populated world, considering all the people who still move from the "uncrowded" countryside to the "crowded" cities."
But of course one has to consider the measure it might entail, but as you can see from populaiton figures, people voluntarily control their birthrate when they can and it is no longer necessary to have 8 children just so that 2 may survive to keep everything going. And your forgetting all the people who move form the crowded cities to the comparatively uncrowded countryside. Lots and lots is how many, in fact some cities have shrunk due to it.
"I prefer a density in which I and all my children are welcome. And where the sanctity of life is respected. Our current density is like a few liberals whining that one lone passenger should be all that is admitted on some big bus or airplane, lest they can't lie across every seat, or might have to endure a little talking or noise. Why those spoiled little brats with no vision or imagination? Why should I care how many people there are out there somewhere outside my home, as long as they leave me alone? I don't mind a very high density, and people living in highrises, to make room for all the more people, as long as the neighbors are friendly and harmless."
Clearly you have rose tinted glasses. You wont get friendly and harmless neighbours in a mad world of breeding people who reproduce as much as they can, which is essntially what you are advocating. ive already mentioned the experiment with rats. Your comparison with whining liberals is braindead.
"Aren't humans going to continue breeding, perhaps no matter what? Maybe more sluggishly due to selfishness and laziness and distractions, or whatever "demographic transition" theory (or is it "contraceptive imperilism?"). Shouldn't we make plans to accomodate the population increase and celebrate all those births and the success of humanity, or look to God for answers and be willing to humble ourselves and submit to God and trust his destiny for us? Rather than plan for failure and mediocrity? What's so wrong with going forward?"
Sheesh, a christian futurist? Ive never met one of them before. See, you believe that god wil provide for you. the rest of us godless people say he wont. or it is very unliekly that he will. One need only look at history to see that. LIke I said before, people are voluntarily restricting their birthrate. Partly due to economic factors, but theres more to it than that. People like you make me sick, effectively saying there is only success with numbers, like a greedy millionaire counting up his hoard.
And as for rat experiments, I cant tell if they were rigged. you cant either. Perhaps you dont know baout the studies into stress on people in cities.
There is such a thing as fish farming, isn't there? I thought "hunting and gathering" (mere uncultivated fishing) had already been assumed to be somewhat obsolete?"
Your being obtuse. recreaction is not spoiled by seeing otehr people, thats just anotehr land use i am suggesting we have changed things to suit ourselves for. AS for fish farming, anyone with any sense sees it has no future. For starters, the artifical environemnt is bad for the fishes health. Secondly, you have to feed salmon etc, on other fish! It takes something like 4 tonnes of them to feed one tonne of salmon. THereby stripping the seas of edible fish even faster.
"And why are the people already living assumed to be of greater value than those to come? Why discriminate against the preborn, just because they aren't here yet to vote? Any gain in human population benefits so many people who could not have lived otherwise, it should be worth some "crowding" to welcome them."
But you are assuming that we can infinitely crowd ourselves, which we cannot. The permitting of many more births might push us over the edge, ro at any rate increases misery for peopel already crowded. Secondly, "preborn" what is this term? Iit is not in any lexuicon of speech i know of. The point is that you cannot make a judgement of hte value of any life until after it is lived. Why do you see living as a benefit? How can you argue that something that doesnt exist might yet want to exist?
"So? Why is over 10 billion any "worse" than 6.5 billion? "
Thus speaks the blind man. go live in mexico city or calcutta for a while.
"One can't propose lessening human population, without having the responsibility to consider what draconian measures that might entail, and whether "the cure is worse than the disease." And many people probably wouldn't mind living in a more densely populated world, considering all the people who still move from the "uncrowded" countryside to the "crowded" cities."
But of course one has to consider the measure it might entail, but as you can see from populaiton figures, people voluntarily control their birthrate when they can and it is no longer necessary to have 8 children just so that 2 may survive to keep everything going. And your forgetting all the people who move form the crowded cities to the comparatively uncrowded countryside. Lots and lots is how many, in fact some cities have shrunk due to it.
"I prefer a density in which I and all my children are welcome. And where the sanctity of life is respected. Our current density is like a few liberals whining that one lone passenger should be all that is admitted on some big bus or airplane, lest they can't lie across every seat, or might have to endure a little talking or noise. Why those spoiled little brats with no vision or imagination? Why should I care how many people there are out there somewhere outside my home, as long as they leave me alone? I don't mind a very high density, and people living in highrises, to make room for all the more people, as long as the neighbors are friendly and harmless."
Clearly you have rose tinted glasses. You wont get friendly and harmless neighbours in a mad world of breeding people who reproduce as much as they can, which is essntially what you are advocating. ive already mentioned the experiment with rats. Your comparison with whining liberals is braindead.
"Aren't humans going to continue breeding, perhaps no matter what? Maybe more sluggishly due to selfishness and laziness and distractions, or whatever "demographic transition" theory (or is it "contraceptive imperilism?"). Shouldn't we make plans to accomodate the population increase and celebrate all those births and the success of humanity, or look to God for answers and be willing to humble ourselves and submit to God and trust his destiny for us? Rather than plan for failure and mediocrity? What's so wrong with going forward?"
Sheesh, a christian futurist? Ive never met one of them before. See, you believe that god wil provide for you. the rest of us godless people say he wont. or it is very unliekly that he will. One need only look at history to see that. LIke I said before, people are voluntarily restricting their birthrate. Partly due to economic factors, but theres more to it than that. People like you make me sick, effectively saying there is only success with numbers, like a greedy millionaire counting up his hoard.
And as for rat experiments, I cant tell if they were rigged. you cant either. Perhaps you dont know baout the studies into stress on people in cities.