|
pronatalist (September 1, 2008 at 2:52 am)
To stuntcat666:
You accuse me of disregard for this beautiful planet? Huh?
Not everything "natural" is good, but often natural is simpler and elegant. With so many people now upon the planet, surely wise humans must "bend" nature to cater to people.
I respect nature, in not directly polluting my body with nasty cancer stick cigarettes, ugly tattooing inks, bizarre body piercings, unnatural skin or hair colorings, or contraceptive potions or poisons.
Nature prefers the poliferation of people.
stuntcat666 (September 1, 2008 at 1:57 am)
it's really telling how you quote the Bible and express your disregard for this beautiful planet in the same sentence.
You apparently believe we Humans have nothing to benefit from saving the beautiful NATURAL parts of the planet and protecting endangered species.
Carry on repeating the same arguments, I can see there's no use discussing this with you. I'm sorry I made you start calling names and stuff :)
pronatalist (September 1, 2008 at 1:06 am)
To stuntcat666
And why must humans feel "guilty" for having let our numbers naturally grow so "huge?" What part of God's commandment to humans, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? God said clearly, that humans are to have dominion over other creatures and over nature. I think it's largely due to sheer numbers, not just because we think we are so smart, or because "we can." God would multiply our numbers so incredibly,that we would have no other option but dominate
pronatalist (September 1, 2008 at 12:58 am)
To stuntcat666
And why will the 2000s or the 21st century, not be the "glorous march forward" for humanity? Because the enviro-wackos will have their way to make sure humans rarely if ever find any benefit for humans? Or because our growth is already severely stunted by the evils of rampant contraceptive pushing?
Of course the creation of babies should grow naturally. What better reason can there be for "supercities" forming, then that the numbers of women are higher than they were previously?
pronatalist (September 1, 2008 at 12:50 am)
To kozarkkkk:
All work is not competing. Much of it is serving, and getting paid. While getting work to do, may be competitive, generally, with so many people, there's so much work to do, that most any good workman often gets plenty of work.
And our pay quite often would seem really good, if there wasn't just so many things "competing" in the marketplace for us to buy them. I have a huge backlog of books and magazines and DVDs and video games, already bought, competing for my limited time.
pronatalist (September 1, 2008 at 12:42 am)
To kozakkk:
But the children are coming to life so fast, because there's more and more "pots" to put them in. The number of women of childbearing age is larger than it has been previously. There's more homes, more cities, parents are preparing to welcome their precious darling babies.
And families used to be commonly larger, back when there was less technology and less wealth with which to accomodate children.
And what if "too many" children somehow turns out to be but a minor "growing pain?"
stuntcat666 (August 31, 2008 at 10:23 pm)
"Our ancesters" did not have clear, overwhelming evidence of what our numbers and our way of life do to the rest of the planet.
and I haven't argued here for any population controls or any kind of government, so there's no need to label my views they way you have.
I think every day of the 40,000 people, mostly toddlers, who DIE every day of starvation. Dignity is degraded by thinking our right to many babies (who'll live our lifestyle w/ tons of trash) is more important than so many dying.
stuntcat666 (August 31, 2008 at 10:20 pm)
For babies being born I only feel pity, the 2000's will not be the glorious march forward for our species that the last century.
As for my parents I wish they'd been wise enough to see what's starting. I dread the things I'll see in the rest of my life. & I do not consider human babies SO much more sacred than any other lifeform on Earth that the creation of them should grow even though it's directly causing a mass-extinction.
kozakkkk (August 31, 2008 at 5:25 pm)
"We should not fear our natural pop growth, but embrace it, to insure we ADAPT"
Yes we adapt, adapt by competing. The more dense the population gets the more competition over the limited resources (and they are limited) we see, aka war. The problem is we are no longer fighting wars with spears and swords, we have the capabilities to blow this world up.
kozakkkk (August 31, 2008 at 5:18 pm)
"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa
That is funny, because flowers is actually a perfect analogy to children. They are fragile and need care and nutrition. So if you don't have enough pots to put them in, if you don't have enough water to water them, and if you don't have enough people to take care of them, then there is such a thing as too many flowers. |
