Denser and denser world population does not jeapardize "room to move."
Originally posted by Pronatalist
We should care more about our fellow humans, even piling people into skyscrapers if ever needed to make more room for people, rather than dissing and despising our, or other people's children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by zanket
You’re assuming that people would want to be born under any conditions. How do you know?
I would want to be regardless, even if the world was greatly "overcrowded." I expect other fellow humans are much like me. People who live in overcrowded shantytowns love their children too, and often use no "birth control." You must first be born and be alive, before you can possibly have any quality of life at all.
Originally posted by zanket
You’d have to show how the viewpoint is extremist first. You haven’t done that. Meanwhile science and even basic logic shows that the viewpoint is justified.
Huh? "Science" hasn't said much of anything about world human "carrying capacity" other than that we already have technologies that could support lots more people. The planet doesn't care how populated people get.
Originally posted by zanket
I’d say the idea is getting more popular that there is a definite limit. It’s definitely something less than 1 trillion.
So what gloom and doom propagandists are saying that the world could hold nearly a trillion people? I thought they like to rant about how we should somehow magically get rid of the majority of people, and somehow reduce world population to only a billion or two, or a few hundred million for their stupid little social utopias? How do you know the world couldn't hold more than a trillion people? I say whatever "limit" is probably somewhat less than an "infinite" number of people, but extremely large, far larger than the number of people we would ever see within our lifetimes. I see no need to rule out massive skyscrapers and underground cities to house booming human populations, other than such population growth is probably rather unlikely, especially during the forseeable future. It would be far better to welcome the world to grow very densely populated, and welcome massive urban sprawl, than to diss human life, for no good reason. Shouldn't we consider doing that which most benefits the most people? That includes welcoming human populations to expand significantly, since it is so much in the interests of "the many," or fellow humans like us, who couldn't live otherwise.
Originally posted by zanket
We can spread out if you can show where the spare quadrillion dollars will come from so we can colonize another planet. Or show how an infinite number of people can fit into a finite space.
With more people comes more money, as more people = more workers building up the infrastructure. I don't consider colonizing other planets practical yet, and the earth is not getting any bigger, so of course we should welcome world population to grow denser and denser, to accomodate all the masses. But then cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is ample room for humanity to grow into yet.
Originally posted by zanket
Would you want to be born into a world where you could not move? You assume everyone would. I think you’re in the tiny minority.
I want to be born somewhere, regardless how many people are here already. The seemingly most important population concern, would be or should be, that
more and more would be glad to live. That is a very worthy consideration to accomodate, if at all possible. There is enough land to build 1000 square feet or 100 square meters of housing space, per person on the ground level, for more than a trillion people. "Standing room only" would be over a quadrillion people, and that's if everybody just stayed on ground level multiplying, and didn't bother to build highrises or skyscrapers to make room for all the more people. Such colorful population scare tactics may be amusing, but they aren't likely. There could be trillions of people on the planet, and people would still have lots of room to move, even if there aren't many places left far away from lots of people.
Of course I would want room to move. But having lots of privacy and seclusion isn't really essential to life or survival. If humans really had much right to "privacy," then why are we all born naked?
Originally posted by zanket
Not being able to move sounds negative to me.
And the relevance to this population discussion? Population could be most any size imaginable, and people would still have lots of room to move. And what happened to the idea of stacking people up in population towers, or whatever that guy called them a few posts ago? Why can't buildings be constructed designed to house thousands or millions of people, if we should ever be able to grow so incrediably numerous? Most any gain in human population benefits so many people who could not have lived or experienced life otherwise, that it should be welcomed and encouraged as great progress for humanity. Why don't more people see that human population growth is very much in the interests of "the many?" Wouldn't "the majority," who couldn't be born otherwise, rather favor human populations being large, or unrestricted in size? Who's to say which people aren't important, or aren't worthy of life? Population is what it is.
Originally posted by zanket
No, the majority of people should make the decision, as they do most decisions that affect all of us. It seems God, if any, has left the decision up to us.
Most people are parents, who usually have children. The average family size throughout the world, still runs around 3 or 4 children. It takes an average of 3 children, mathmatically, just to get both a son and a daughter, due to the possibility in half of cases, of having 2 boys or 2 girls with the first 2 children. Lots of people want at least 3 children. I would say that most people effectively "vote" for human populations to keep growing. And I hear very little interest in that anti-population idea of "stopping at two" children. I think most people don't mind much at all if world population continues to enlarge, just as long as there are enough resources to handle it all. The pessimistic idea that more mouths to feed, leads to hunger, seems to have lost a lot of crediability in recent times. Now people are more concerned about social matters, and things like pollution. And now that another country (India) has also burgeoned to over a billion people, perhaps the future does portend large population, but obesity is a growing problem throughout the world, even in China. It appears that the world can in fact hold far more people than previously thought, and population growth rates do appear to have become more sluggish than previous predicted. By some estimatation back in the 1970s, weren't we due to have around 8 billion people by the turn of the century? Seems we are running behind as population isn't so "out of control" after all? But the idea of population "control" isn't compatible with freedom anyhow.
I don't believe in using any form of "birth control," as it better says to my children that they are "wanted," if no "birth control" is used, as more children are always welcome into the family if God allows.
Originally posted by zanket
A tax on everyone for having 3+ kids is not racist.
Huh? You don't really think it would ever be applied uniformly, on some "equal opportunity discrimination" basis, do you? Parents of large families should be congratulated or rewarded for doing so much work to raise the next generation, and welcoming all the more human beings to live. Taxes are too high, and large families often the inevitable and natural outlet for powerful reproductive urges. It's not bad for people to welcome their families to grow large, but very good, as more and more people would be very glad to live. "Runaway" population growth should be encouraged and welcomed, because we should be grateful to God for the great and precious gift of life, and welcome all the more people to come to life. Most everybody likes living, and large families often provide a rich environment, which may even better condition children for living in a populous world. Often people who grow up in large families, have a very positive experience and welcome it again for their children. And younger children can share beds so that more people can live, even in a large family that doesn't have a large home. Young children often are afraid of being alone anyways, and do better sharing a bedroom.
Originally posted by zanket
Likewise. Laws that ensure kids have enough space to move would seem to be compatible with those goals.
Whatever are you talking about now? What about laws protecting the right to live? Laws protecting innocent babies from abortion? Laws set restrictions on people? What do you want? A "law" protecting the freedom of the people to build more housing for their growing families? If the population grows bigger, we just build more homes, schools, and whatever the children need. Duh? And that is much easier to do with freedom and minimal taxes and regulations. Any child will find far more space in the world, than they had in the cramped womb.
Originally posted by zanket
The child who cannot move.
Children are not plants anchored by roots. Most anybody can move. So did you just admit here that most all children would very much want to live, by suggesting that probably only children in a population so crammed with people that nobody can move, wouldn't want to live?
Originally posted by zanket
Naturally, human populations will be restrained. That is, by nature. The law of cause and effect is clear on this. The only choice we have is whether that happens in a controlled manner or in a tragic manner.
Oh I know all about how the gloom and doom Malthusians love to beat that dead horse. But world population is now some 6 times as large as in Malthus's day, and people are living longer, and gaining wealth. In spite of, or perhaps because of, population growth. How much evidence do we need, to admit that Malthus was probably WRONG. Malthus claimed that somebody must die to make room for each new birth. I am really glad few people heeded his backward advice. It isn't really necessary to ask parents to wait for somebody to die before hoping they are still fertile enough to have children. There is another, far better alternative that Malthus was too unwilling to consider. Human populations could instead grow denser and denser, and we could put all the additional people
in between all the people already living. We have adapted and adapted nature to our population growth, far better than the pessimists have predicted. According to the self-appoint population "experts" we should have all starved by now. Well it seems we are all alive, and those who worry most about supposed "overpopulation" have the comforts of writing their irrational population propaganda essays from air conditioned ivory towers with computer and such, and full bellies.
Originally posted by zanket
Your mention of God in this topic leads me to suspect that you have been brainwashed by religion, which has a huge incentive to promote “unlimited” population growth, however illogical. The goal is to gain more money-donating churchgoers. Nowadays “go forth and multiply” is simply a marketing gimmick.
Oh, so here we go with that nonsense that population growth made more sense in the days of Adam and Eve (Gen 1:28), or in the days of Noah (Gen 9:1), when there was a whole planet for small populations to grow into. But now that world population is growing so large, there is no longer much use for large families? Not so. The reason to multiply is hardly just to prevent an "empty" planet, but for human benefit so that more people could experience life. Thus, large families are just as relevant and practical in today's world of burgeoning billions.
And you write off "go forth and multipy" as some "marketing gimmick" of the Church? Perhaps to fill more pews? How can you be so shallow as to write off the many advantages of population growth so carelessly? Most everybody wants to have children. Why can't that be a good reason to welcome population growth? And what business wouldn't like to gain more customers, without having to advertise. If I was a diaper manufacturer, or a baby product or toy manufacturer, or manufactured most anything at all, why wouldn't I be delighted if my customers were undergoing a big baby boom, to insure more customers for my products, more room in the market for competitors to share the market, an expanding marketshare due simply to surging population growth, and room to expand production facilitaries and pay my workers better, so that they can take care of their own growing families? It seems to me that "go forth and multiply" makes sense even from an economics viewpoint. It is hardly some "gimmick." In fact, I claim that population growth accelerates technology growth, so that as human populations expand, they also tend to improve many "quality of life" issues, and history has much verified that idea so far. Many of the inventions we too often take for granted, would not likely have been invented, or could not be mass produced cost-effectively, without massive markets. Things such as computer chips, cannot be made at a reasonable price, in small quantities.
And why do you overlook the idea, that future generations may actually want to be more populous, so that all the more people could then live? All those children may not fill the pews anyways, as they move to other communities or go to other Churches. Can't the population be larger, just for the people's own sakes, who couldn't have lived otherwise? I would say the real incentive for "unlimited" population growth, isn't really what it does for other people, but what it does for all the people welcomed to come to life.
More and more people would be glad to live, and that is a very worthy concern in its own right. Many people don't believe in human population "control," as it is too messing trying to decide which people are important, and which aren't, and they don't want to infringe in any way on the rights of parents to have children. Denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to life. I also see that large families are quite practical, as many people are good at nurturing children, and shouldn't the parents with the most experience and love for children, have the most? Well that implies no practical limit on family size, other than how ever many children God allows people to have. What if many people simply don't want to bother with awkward "birth control" and don't fear pregnancy and want children?
And what of the old maxim, "Grow or die?"
