Can any of those in denial of population issues tell me something?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

I've just got to ask this. Assuming that you don't believe we need to be concerned about population, please tell me how many people you think the planet can support. Then tell me what we should do to keep the population at or below that number.

Do you think it would be ok if we keep reproducing until we have, say 100 trillion people? How about a trillion times that many? How about if we are so numerous that we have to remain standing all our lives, and not all inhale at the same time? Or should we just build multiple layer, world wide buildings, in order to house all these people? Is it ok with you if most of these folks never get to see the sky? A tree? A river? A lake?

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000

Answers

Hi Joe, I know I am risking another good cussing out, but I honestly believe that population is self controlling and when we get to the point that there are two many people, disease, or natural disaster will control it, because God is in control. Much better that the decision of who to remove from the earth to remain in the hands of the almighty God. Much better than to allow corrupt men to decide. I believe we are a long way from worrying about it though. Not that worrying does us any good. What I don't understand from you over- population people is how you think that it is better to step all over people's rights to control population and essentially bring the hell you say us baby makers will cause to fruition through tyranny. All you have to do to see that this is what will happen is look at China to know that this is so. All those poor baby girls who have done nothing but be born the wrong sex. I am sorry, I would much rather leave it in God's hands than leave it in the hands of man to screw up.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 06, 2000.


Thanks for your comments, LBF. I agree that the population can be self limiting. I personally would rather see us limit it ourselves. I wrote, in many other posts on this site, that I have no interest in telling people how many children to have. I have no interest in "killing" children. I also have no interest in seeing the population reach a level that is so horrible that everybody starts dying. If this is the solution that your God offers, no thanks. I'm also not into having the government tell us how many kids to have. That's why I am requesting, suggesting, pleading, with people to please limit their family size VOLUNTARILY, so none of these other tragedies comes to pass. Obviously, one of them will, otherwise, right?

Leaving it in God's hands, if I understand you, to just go along following the path of least resistance. I find that irresponsible.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.


Joe our problem is that we see this from completely different perspectives. You see I don't see death in the same light as you do. I see death as the beginning not the ending. This naturally give us a different take on many issues. If I believed as you do that there was no God, of course I would be fearful of the future, because for me the end of life would be the end of me. But you see I see the whole world being in the hands of God both now and in eternity. I Believe that the eventualities that you forsee will never come to pass because God himself will step in to prevent them, or he will allow them to happen for the betterment of all humanity. I have entrusted myself into His hands. I know that this is so hard for you to understand. You see the reason we can never come to agreement on this issue, is because no matter how we slice it, I believe in God and you have stated previously, you don't. So although I know that your fear of the future is genuine, I do not hold the smae fear. But I will tell you this, I sincerely pray that someday you will have the comfot of knowing that there is a God and he loves you. Unfortunately as much as I genuinely care for you(I do you know), and want that for you, I can't make you believe it. You and I have had a rocky road on this forum, but I wouldn't have stuck it out this long if I didn't care. You see know matter how much I drive you nuts, no matter how many horrible things you say to me, years from now I will still be here praying for you.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 06, 2000.


JOJ,

As has already been said the population is self limiting. That is presuming that we are talking about a normal set of corcumstances, which however; we are not. We have injected social engineering into the mix, and by doing so we have interfered with Gods' work. Something he apparently will put up with for a while.

Social engineering started with the well meaning programs of the 30's. They were so profitable for the elite few that it became "the thing to do" since then. Now we are all caught in the trap that I like to call feedlot slavery. Most of us are a commodity being raised in the feedlot of social engineering. If we have a choice in the matter we do not know it. The problem would be self solving if it were not for the social engineers. The profiteers, if you will. JOJ, you are one of these folks constantly jabbering about GOD, when your real message is that you think GOD is out to lunch, and he left you in charge. This is as you like it anyway, because you had a better idea anyway.

After 5 or six generations of this socialistic profiteering, there is little hope for anything that makes sense. I doubt that the problem can be solved quickly, that is to say ; in my lifetime or yours. I do think that if the social engineers would step out of the picture and "let nature take it's course" that there would be a lot less of a problem. Unfortunately there is no profit in that move so it will not happen soon. If you are looking for the problem, look no further than the nearest mirror. Social engineering is the problem, not the solution. GOD is not out to lunch, he is still in charge.

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.


JOJ ,I personaly do not follow a set religion,nor do I believe in a "God"I do believe that nature heals its self and cleans its self.The big sickness were caused by us messing to much w/ nature {in my opinon} and sure as the sun rises another will come and cleans the earth. It seems to me {i maybe wrong}the big sickness hit cities were the population is greatest and filth is everywhere,now do not get me wronge here,but those folks are almost asking for it. If I kept a dirty farm and my animals suffered for it I would lose in the end,my family would go hungry and lose self respect. self respect is the main point here.

-- renee oneill{md.} (oneillsr@home.com), December 06, 2000.


LBF, I'm sorry that you choose to jump to conclusions. I don't "fear" the future. I do have a lot of concern for the future, but don't fear it. For one thing, I realize that I'm only here for until the end of the show. I have had a fine life, and I'm feeling pretty confident about the future insofar as my own well being, and that of my immediate family. I have enough resources to deal with a lot of different possible futures.

It's more for those folks who don't have the education or finances to protect themselves from people such as yourself. It's fine for you to put yourself in God's hands, and thus deny responsibility for your actions. The problem is, your attitude, and your actions, are responsible for worsening the future health and happiness of several billion people. I wish you'd look into the future, and choose a path (we can choose, you know) which is best for all out descendants. Please don't encourage people to be so selfish. It's not about just any one person's family and kids. We SHARE the resources of this planet.

Ed, are you sayiing that, because I am interested in encouraging people to look farther ahead into the future, like past your nose, that I am the "social engineer" who is responsible for all our ills? Hellooooo? You're being a bit simplistic here, Ed.

As far as God "leaving me in charge", no, I don't think so. Although I doubt if I, or practically anyone, could have screwed things up as much as you seem to think things are screwed up. Do you really think your God is the one who, being omnipotent, gave the social engineers the go ahead for their nefarious programs? If so, you're right, God is out to lunch. I hope it's a fairly short lunch break!

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.


.I agree the population will be regulated, not by the "Christian God" or any one of the other religions "God", but by mankind. The next war, which will most probably be biological in nature, will take care of the excess population if it exists. Some countries may have reached their carrying capacity; however, the USA has not at this time and will not in the near future. We may have a population disbursement problem, but that also will tend to be self correcting as it has in the past

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 06, 2000.

Thanks, JLS,

You say that the US has not reached its carrying capacity yet. I agree. But it's big enough. What do you suppose the carrying capacity IS? What would you think is the limiting factor? Space? Water? Food? Stress?

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.


How many people can the earth support? We cannot have any idea at this time, but it's far larger than the number of people currently alive.

Some years ago there was a study of American trash dumps done that showed America throws out more food than Canada eats. I'd be willing to bet we've gotten worse since that study was done. Add to that our love of meat and its agricultural inefficiencies and we could supply far more human food at today's crop productions than we do. (It's true that many cattle are ranged where tilling is not possible, but still most of our corn and barley, essentially all of our millet and oats and almost half of our wheat are used to put fat on meat animals and as dairy feed.) In short, even without major breakthroughs in raising food, we can feed many more people than we currently do.

As the population grows faster than production, costs of meat will rise faster than the cost of grains. People will change their diet and life will go on without forced controls. (A similar argument holds for the diminishing oil supplies--as the supply dwindles alternatives will become more practical and the changeover _could_ be slow and without any major problems. The major problems result from how it's handled politically.)

There are, however, other questions that I feel should be asked, but are not being asked. Most boil down to: "Can we support a much larger population and maintain a suitable quality of life?" and "Is it better to have a lot of people existing, or fewer people with a better quality of life?" My personal opinion is fewer people living a more natural life would be better, but I do not like the idea of artificial pressure being put on people to limit the number of children they have. But then, I'm biased towards a rural lifestyle that will become even rarer in a crowded world. Many people enjoy cities, and for them life in a more crowded world may be just fine.

I feel that as the world becomes more and more crowded people will want fewer children and the population growth rate will slow. Evidence for this is that as "third-world" countries industrialize the population soars as improved healthcare improves longevity, but then stabilizes as more woman work rather than raise kids. The worst thing that can happen population-wise is to improve longevity with modern medicines without giving the people a viable economy. Alas that seems to be the actual goal of may international aid programs.

==>paul

-- paul (p@ledgewood-consulting.com), December 06, 2000.


Well said, Paul. You made some good points. You say, "Is it better to have a lot of people existing, or fewer people with a better quality of life?" My personal opinion is fewer people living a more natural life would be better, but I do not like the idea of artificial pressure being put on people to limit the number of children they have" I agree with this. For some reason, there are several people who visit this forum who think I'm in FAVOR of placing controls on people's ability to choose their family size. I'm not. As far as "artificial pressure", I' m not certain what that means. I hope it doesn't mean trying to convince people to limit their family size voluntarily. I don't think that's what you mean.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.



JOJ,

"Natural" pressure is "Do I want to work or raise 6 kids?" or "How many kids can I feed and cloth?"

"Artificial" pressure is the PRC, for example, mandating one kid per couple, or major tax penalties for having kids. Personally I'm not sure if I would mind removing the tax benefits for having kids though.

Education, at least _real_ education is never a bad thing. Indoctrination (by anybody) posing as education is always a threat.

In short, like most areas of life, letting (human) nature take its course will probably be the best, but there is a real chance of any issue becoming politicized and really messed up.

==>paul

-- paul (p@ledgewood-consulting.com), December 06, 2000.


Thanks for the clarification, Paul. I agree, I am totally in favor of eliminating tax benefits for having kids.

You say, ""Natural" pressure is "Do I want to work or raise 6 kids?" or "How many kids can I feed and cloth?" Would you think that "How many kids can OUR PLANET feed and cloth" qualify as "natural pressure"? It seems like it to me.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 06, 2000.


JOJ--- just had to say I have now found something we agree on. Check out Hamilton's (I believe thats the right researcher) work on evolutionary stable societies. You'd probably appreciate the 1976 work by Richard Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene"--it was updated in the 80's.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), December 06, 2000.

JOJ,

IMO, thinking about the whole earth and it's long-term future to decide if one should have kids or not is very unnatural. Thinking about one can feed, cloth and house them is, however, very natural and all that is required. In 'developed' countried now however the decision seems to be "what will having a kid to to _MY_ standard of living?" More and more people over the last couple of decades have been having fewer kids so that women can work more and support a higher standard of living. Most of the world's population growth is in developing countries and will stabalize when they become more advanced.

By the time we start aproaching the limit we can support, having kids will be a tough decision.

==>paul

-- paul (p@ledgewood-consulting.com), December 06, 2000.


JOJ, I for one, do not want human kind to go the same way as the lemmings, and rabbits do, when their population reaches critical numbers. Widespread plague, and subsequent near elimination of said species doesn't sound like a decision an intelligent human being would consciously make.

I thought our Creator put us on this Earth to be it's "caretakers" above all other purposes, so far, we all have done a very dismal job! In endowing us with a "greater" intellect than that of the rest of the species on this Earth, our Creator also gave us far greater responsibilty for it ( the Earth), and I would suggest that we all start taking our part in this responsibility much more seriously. We all need to look far beyond what our selfish needs are, and consider what, and how, these actions will affect the Earth, and it's inhabitants, globally, for this is our true responsibilty. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (annie@1st.net), December 07, 2000.



The more populated we become the greater the risks for dieases. The planet will only support so much life. Although we are well over that limit now. Why I say this? Because we are so dependent on chemicals to suppliment our diets, the male sperm count is dropping. and in other animals this imbalance is also occuring. WE NEED COTROL. I support a womans right to choose. In no way do I want to tread on another idividuals choice. No one, not even the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body, mentally or physically.

Religion is hipocracy in it's glory.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.


hillbilly do you have kids?

-- teri m (mrs_smurf2000@yahoo.ca), December 07, 2000.

Joe, speaking of population, I don't want to crumble your cracker but Sandy and I are planning on selling the ranch and are looking for a place in your neighborhood, east of I-5, Jump Off Joe road, or along Granite Hill road, will be buying something by summer 2001, plan to move in 3 years. I have a friend here in Wolf Creek also who wants to move down there to the Monument Drive area but not as far as Merlin don't worry tho, we are all beyond the child bearing age.

-- Hendo (redgate@echoweb.net), December 07, 2000.

I agree with JOJ that within a few generations the Earth will reach its carrying capacity (keeping in mind that carrying capacity is a function of food production and transportation). In fact many parts of the planet are already at it max load and famine is widespread.
I also definately agree that people should voluntarily limit their family size to no more than one child in those regions until a sustainable population size is reached and then only a replacement birthrate should be allowed.
Sadly, people wont voluntarily limit their birthrate though unless it is imposed upon them. The reason is that the selfish irresponsible ones and/or the ones that are counting on a mythical "God" to clean up after themselves and "make it all better" will simply outbreed the responsible people who do their part in population control.
Its natural selection at work, the selfish people have more kids and pass that selfish mindset onto those kids who then go on to having even more kids. This is in contrast to the responsible people who have only a couple of kids, raise those kids to be responsible and then those kids only have a couple of kids. At the end of a couple of generations the selfish people outnumber the responsible people by an order of magnitude.

It wont stop until some genetic engineer looking around at the teeming mass of poverty stricken humanity gets disgusted enough with humanity in general to engineer (I fervently hope) a "Sterility Plague" that sterilizes most of humanity. I wouldnt mind it a bit if such a plague happened tomorrow, EVEN IF I AND/OR MY WIFE CAUGHT IT!
Its either that or a global crash, this time though it will be permanent since the Earth no longer has the easily obtainable resources to allow a recovery, this is our one and only shot at getting off this planet and ensuring that our species doesnt die out.

I also feel that anybody who has a serious genetic defect is being completely irresposible if they choose to pass those genes on to their offspring. Ask any farmer what happens if they dont prevent the sickly, weak, or deformed from breeding; within a few generations they end up with a farm full of deformed animals. Ever since "survival of the fittest" no longer applied to humans I worry that more and more bad recessive genes are entering the gene pool and our childrens children will be stuck with a world in which a few productive healthy people are forced to care for a planet chock full of sickly non-producers.

Im probably going to get badly flamed for this post, thats okay, it will pretty much just prove my point. The vast majority of humanity is incapable if looking past their own immediate wants, anything else outside their own line of sight is somebody elses problem. It's sad really....

Dave

-- Dave (AK) (daveh@ecosse.net), December 07, 2000.


No one should request, or even suggest to a person, to put a limit on how many children they should have. And when it comes to biblically, sound Christian families, the more, the better. Children are God's gifts to us. Why should we deny a gift from God? We need more stable, moral children in this country with an appreciation for God and country. Just my two cents.

-- Judy (allsmile@ctnet.net), December 07, 2000.

LBF, nothing personal here but do you let God take care of things when your children are sick or need surgery or do you take them to the doctor and let them intervene in "God's plan". My guess is that you go to the doctor. Because medicine has made such "advances" we are now saving people that probably were not in God's plans to be saved. But we take heroic measures to save them. As an example, a premature baby born several months too early is put on various types of machines to do the things that it's tiny body can't do for itself. In past times, this baby would have died, for whatever reason we may attribute that God would have had this occur. Instead, now, we intervene and "nature", i.e. God is no longer calling the shots. To me, now that we as a society have decided that we will play God and save people through our medical practices (which I do agree with), we now have to take the responsibility for how we are interfering with God's plan and take actions ourselves to limit our population. We really can't talk out of both sides of our mouths. We either "leave it all up to God" or we don't.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), December 07, 2000.

Last I heard it took a sperm to come close to an egg for fertilization to make a baby....god has nothing to do with it. "god" doesn't decide how many children to have, you (except for crimes) choose to have sex or not.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), December 07, 2000.

As one who considers herself a Christian, I find the usual attitude of "have all the kids God blesses you with" to be arrogant and ignorant. Man was told to go forth and populate the world. It's been done, folks. Ease up. And to assume that any child born of a Christian couple will be an asset to the world is arrogance at it's height. We are also called to be good stewards of what God has given us. I think that includes the earth. These preachers who claim the earth can sustain x number of billions of people are using total land mass for their calculations, not tillable farmland. Who wants to live in polar regions, windswept stepps or deserts. The ability to move food to consumers is almost impossible now, there are famines somewhere all the time. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but at what expense? Reminds me of the line from "Jurassic Park". They were so thrilled with the fact they could do it, they didn't consider whether they should.

-- melina b. (goatgalmjb1@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

Dave- Your basic premise that overpopulation and famine occur because people are selfish and expect a God to clean up the mess is fundamentally flawed. people in most of the areas you condemn are mainly interested in survival. More children equals more available resource gatherers for the family group. The fact that many don't live past childhood means that you must keep reproducing in the hope that enough survive to provide for you and your family group and thus the population continues to increase as better health care and nutrition is provided by outside sources. Their selfishness comes from thier natural imperative to allow their genetic line to continue. And I can only assume that you are perfectly healthy with 20-20 or better vision and no history of heart disease, cancer or any other potentially genetically linked problems in your family tree. Eugenics is a very dangerous path to go down. You can also ask any farmer how dangerous it can be to limit genetic diversity in breeding lines. Hybrid vigor is a beautiful thing and yesterdays unwanted mutant could be the source of tommorrows miracle cure.

-- ray s. (mmoetc@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.

JOJ don't figure you need any help here.You're holding you own just fine.Welcome back.how was your trip? Rock's progressing?

Terri-whether hillbilly has kids or not is irrelevant.I selflessly chose to have 0 kids of my own,so others could.I selfessly raised a stepson, while his unfit biological mother popped out 5 more on welfare. Which of us would you rather have as a neighbor? The unfit mother of 7 who doesn't believe in limiting her offspring, or a caring,big hearted person ,who does.

Annie Miller,JOJ, and hillbilly and others-You've pretty much covered my thoughts,so no need for repetition.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), December 07, 2000.


JOJ,

I'm enjoying this discussion.

You asked "please tell me how many people you think the planet can support". Do you mean "self support" or support with a lot of manipulation of it's resources by us?

If it's the latter, then I think we can continue on for quite some time. "artificially"

If you mean self support then I'd say we are long past that and therefore overpopulated.

Just imagine if every water treatment plant in the world shut down. We'd drop countless millions within weeks or even days! (Not something I'd like to see happen BTW). The earth is not supporting itself. It's like an old barn, we are jumping through hoops to prop up what's sagging.

The older I get the more I'm inclined to think that life in the US and other industrialised nations is not "real life". You only have to listen to shortwave radio for a couple of hours to realize that a good portion of the world's peoples are in the middle of a famine or a major disease out break. We see this as unacceptable and try to fix it. But in reality famine and desease are natural.

I think in order for the earth to heal itself and become SELF sustaining all the "props" would have to be removed and desease and famine allowed to run their course.

In this "natural" environment I could have a baby every year, but I would have to accept that not all of them would make it to their 5th birthday. It would be "real life", a lot of pain and sorrow, part of the natural cycle of a self sustaining earth.

We've come so far from accepting the natural order of things. We expect to get everything with "three easy payments of just 19.95" and everyone to live forever with no discomfort.I don't WANT things to be SO natural, however, I can't help but think that this was the way things were meant to be.

With the scientists only one step ahead of the "bugs" and viruses. They only need to trip, (and I believe they will) then we are going to be completely over run by "real Life"!

Ok, with that off my chest I'll go take a Tylenol for this headache!

Pauline in NC

-- Pauline (tworoosters_farm@altavista.com), December 07, 2000.


As an overpopulater I would like to give my support to those who know who's in control and are secure in that faith. God was able to take care of a million plus Israelites in the desert and I trust him to be faithful to take care of my small brood too. It was rightly spoken that those who don't have such faith just don't get our position and I realize that we are probably very frustrating to you! I am not trying to change opinions just give support to those who are not screaming the loudest. God created this world and I think He's big enough to take care of it. We are not like animals who need to be selectively bred for quality. Our quality comes in the fact that God saw us worthy of redemption. The physical problems this world or our bodies have is not the number one consideration. May God bless you in your walk with Him.

Kathy mother of 6+

-- Kathy (DavidWH6@juno.com), December 07, 2000.


It really doesn't matter. It is ultimately decided. We chose to limit our reproductive status after one. But one or a dozen children, in the end Mother Nature will decide and only the healthiest will survive. Its beautiful the way The Almighty has provided this great work of life the ability "shake the lice out of her hair" when neccessary. Look now at E. Coli, Ebola, HIV, all of these qualify as over population controlling plagues. HIV is spread by unprotected sex which also produces offspring. E. Coli affects mostly young and elderly, survival of the fitest. Ebola seems to be more pronounced in over populated regions. Folks want to muse on this subject, but as I see it, wheather you wamt one child or twenty, just make sure you raise them healthy, keeping your environment as pristine as you can and rear them to value this also and let God and Mother Nature handle the rest.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.

Good discussion. Before getting to the subject, a sidelight. Several people think they can talk for God, isn't that just a bit presumptuous. Let God talk for herself. JOJ, you asked "What would you think is the limiting factor? Space? Water? Food? Stress?" None of the above, however they may temporarily limiting in the near term along with government controls. (Gov't will impose limits when able, like China has done.) At some point the population will self regulate with outbreaks of extremely infectious diseases. They may be natural as was the the plague in the 1300's or artificially created by germ warfare. We, those living in the WEST, have and use by far the majority of the worlds resources. Sooner or later, some country will want their share. The West, with the USA in particular, must first be eliminated as a world power. Thus, germ warfare. Annie Miller, you said "I for one, do not want human kind to go the same way as the lemmings, and rabbits do, when their population reaches critical numbers. Widespread plague, and subsequent near elimination of said species doesn't sound like a decision an intelligent human being would consciously make." Agreed, but greed will overcome. (The greed of power and control)

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 07, 2000.

Gosh, poor Hitler. Had he just waited a few generations, he would have had such a willing audience!! Oh well, timing is everything I guess. Which reminds me, God's timing is perfect.....hold on brothers and sisters in Christ...until the last knee bows! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

WOW this has been quite a discussion. I think I more side with Little Bit on this one. People die, People are born, I think it all evens out in the end. Some people let God decide the number of children they have, some have a few then end their reproduction capabilities when they feel they have enough. Some concieve then decide it's not a good time or an unwanted baby and kill it. I don't agree with abortion but I'm not going to condem someone who chooses this route, unless asked for my opinion of course, it's a sin in they eyes of God to kill anyone unborn/born so it's one of the many sins. I have to give Little Bit a hand for standing firm in her convictions up against JOJ.

-- Carol in Tx (cwaldrop@peoplescom.net), December 07, 2000.

Well y'all I sure am feeling guilty for having my 3 kids!!!

-- kelly (kellytree@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

JOJ, Every time you write a post on this issue you impress me with your intelligence and common sense. You are well on your way to becoming my hero on this forum. You know from my personal E-mails to you that I agree with your opinions as if they were my own, which they are!

Annie Well said. I couldn't agree more.

Dave Finally someone brought up the a subject that has had me baffled for a long time. In the Countryside mag I'm always reading letters from folks who caution others not to let their sickly or otherwise unhealthy animals breed. Also, not to put too many animals in too small a space. Why does it seem that most folks can agree with this, but cannot apply it to themselves?

In 1967 when I was 9 years old I could easily see that there were too many people on the earth already. No one taught me this I just opened my eyes and looked around. It was an easy conclusion to come to. At this tender age I vowed never to reproduce. Thirty one years later I have absolutely no regrets. I will continue to be part of the answer and not part of the problem.

As for bringing God into it, I have been a baptized practicing Christian for 30 years. Not all of us who believe in God think the way Little Bit and some others do. God created human beings as the only animals who could choose not to reproduce. I am proud to exercise that choice.

-- debra in ks (solid-dkn@msn.com), December 07, 2000.


JLS, I must say, my God, the God almighty of the universe, is not a her. He is God the Father and he has spoken through the Bible. Everyone on this forum is in my prayers, especially those who do not have Jesus in their hearts. God bless you all.

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 07, 2000.

We are already experiencing many forms of natural population control , many of which we can do nothing about. Examples; Ebola, AIDS, cancer, stupidity( ever check out the site for the darwin awards?),lack of natural instinct,genetic disorders,people who can't get along tend to kill one another off. And these forms of control are NOT BAD! They are necessary for the survival of the human species, that's why the control measures exist. It happens all the time, both in our species and others. For example, in a population of tomato plants in my garden, the ones that need very warm soil to germinate never do. They are thus eliminated.When I transplant them, the ones that go into shock from cool soil and get stunted will never produce much. They're not suited for the area. By the end of the season, the tomatoes that have produced are the strong, hardy ones that could take the cool weather and even a light frost now and then and keep producing, and produce well. These are what I save seed from. Now, in contrast, what if i were to throw out most of the tomato seeds, and only plant 1 or 2 from each variety? By the end of the season, I'd have only a very few tomatoes, and of the ones that did survive to produce seed and resist disease, their gene pool would be very narrow. I'd worry about other things knocking them out in the future. The plagues and diseases and other control measures are going to come whether or not the earth is 'overpopulated'. True, they come more often and spread more quickly, but they are necessary to prove out the gene pool and they are coming all the time, everyday of our life. A disease at a time of underpopulation could very easily whittle us down to just a few survivors, and then you'd have to be concerned with inbreeeding, and recessive genes coming out of the woodwork. We are often blamed for the extinction of some animal species. I was reading about the Dartmouth warbler. It may be extinct by now, at the time the book was written it was extremely endangered. Why? Because of something humans did? No, the bird needs mild winters. Every time a nasty winter comes along, a lot of them die. But if they survive, it will be because the ones that are left are more tolerant of the cold, and among their offspring, some will be more cold tolerant than their parents, while others are not, which will die. These are the natural laws that the Almighty made to ensure that species would continue to live and to be able to adapt to changes. Some one in the first population thread said I was selfish to have my own children, that I should instead adopt fetal alchohol syndrome babies. This is a genetic disorder caused by the mother drinking while pregnant. Now tell me please, what kind of a state our world is going to be in if everyone takes such poor advice and stops reproducing, except to adopt the offspring of irresponsible mothers. Our genetic gene pool would go down the tubes. These natural control measures are necessary, they are good for the species,

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), December 07, 2000.

Good points Rebekah. Without weeding out the weak and unfit from a species it is bound to decline. Evolutionary scientists currently estimate 99.5% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. It is a natural process and will continue no matter how much breast beating takes place.

bwilliams your mythic christian god is not my God and for sure is not even the unified god of this planet, let alone the Universe. My God, The Great Creator (Spirit) is both male and female. I don't need or want your interference in my spiritual endeavors.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 07, 2000.


Rebekah, tell me if I'm wrong, but are you honestly saying that people dying in floods and earthquakes or of incurable diseases is a GOOD thing? Just which undesirable genetic traits would be gotten rid of that way? And are you saying that adopting the child of a teenage mother is wrong because that child is genetically inferior? This is scary thinking!

Personally, I think that voluntarily limiting the number of people coming into this world and doing what we can to ensure a quality life for as many of the people who are already here is a lot simpler and better for everyone. After all, how would you feel if your own children were destroyed by disease or natural disaster? Would that also be good for our species, or is that true only when it happens to someone else?

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), December 07, 2000.


JLS, God the Creator is both male and female...Genesis, first page. "in the image of God created He them, male and female.." Why such hostility?

People are born, people live, and people die. We are not overpopulated, we ARE doing a terrible job of being caretakers of God's creation. Quality of life doesn't come from without, it comes from within; with faith and a teachable heart. All of the beauty in the world isn't enough to pacify a truly nasty person. Greed is the thing that causes all of the problems with resources that we have, as well as many(most) of our societal problems. Some people would just as soon kill everyone they look at just for breathing the same air.

No one has suggested abstinence....why not? Every one wants the fun without the responsibility? Is that really accountability? Or is it play without pay? Avoidance of consequences at it's finest.

This is indeed craziness. I tend to agree with Wendy. Hitler would have been pleased in reading this. All for population control....you first.C-ya.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 07, 2000.


Leslie, earthquakes and floods are natural disasters. That is not the kind of natural control measure I'm talking about. Diseases, yes. that is an example. The ones that are not able to fight off the disease die. Somewhere in this world lives someone who is immune to AIDS, or Ebola. Maybe a whole group of people. If nearly everyone gets that disease, there will be a few left to start the species up again. Survival of the fittest is often misunderstood and the term is mis used. It doesn't always mean the biggest or strongest. Sometimes the biggest animal cannot sustain itself on the available food so it dies off while the little ones keep going. Sometimes they may all look alike, but when a disease or some other calamity comes along, one or two have the resistance to the heat, cold, virus, or whatever. They live because they are more fit for their environment. What is the fittest in Alaska will not be the fittest for South America. The trait to wothstand heat would be useless in Alaska, so for that area, yes, it is a good thing if they don't keep passing their genes along. I didn't say that adopting the baby of a teenage mother would be a mistake because of genetic reasons. I referred to the first population thread(in the archives now) which said I was selfish for not adopting a Fetal Alchohol Syndrome baby. That is a genetic defect, I know a lady who adopted twins with FAS and she has tried very hard, but it has been nothing but heartache for her. Apparently they cannot learn consequences, and are born alchoholics. I'm not saying they should be murdered or anything evil like that, I'm just saying that it is short sighted to refrain from passing our own genes along in favor of thhose with a genetic defect. And, I meant on a large scale. I think it's really sad when kids are born with genetic problems. Bless those who adopt the Down's babies! But to say that the rest of us are selfish because we have our own genes perpetuated just doesn't make sense to me. If one of my children, or all of them, die from an infectious disease, I'll be heartbroken. But, we all die sometime, some earlier than others. And the controls I was speaking of are already here, all the time, regardless of numbers. The common cold is a good example. Every winter the colds come along, and some people die from them. It's just a simple fact of life. Yes, it is good for our species, whether or not it happens to me.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), December 07, 2000.

Ok Rebekah -sorry I misunderstood. Your views are much clearer now, and in fact you got me thinking about just how much a factor such as disease does affect the genetic makeup of our species. In the case of isolated viruses like Ebola and Hanta, I would imagine there is some localized genetic resistance, but I wouldn't think it would count for much in the population as a whole. HIV would have a much greater impact since it is global.

On the whole, though, my feeling is that genetic weaknesses such as disease resistance are relatively unimportant compared to the absolute slew of traits that don't get us killed, but that, at best, do nothing to strengthen our genetic makeup. However, leave it to the Hitlers of the world to decide which traits are which, as someone else said. The point I'm trying to make on the genetic weakness issue is that humans AS A WHOLE are able to avoid nearly every pitfall that dooms "unfit" plants and animals in the wild, and that sets us apart in a way that has, actually and potentially, enormous impact on the earth. Genetically.... who knows? I have no idea if we're smarter or fitter than people thousands of years ago. But strictly numerically, births far exceed deaths, so I believe that we must be responsible for keeping our own numbers in check. I'm already feeling the effects of our failure to do so.

I don't mean to dig anyone in the ribs by my statements. The fact that I do not believe in a grand plan for the universe is probably what really sets me apart from some of the posters in this thread. And knowing that some of you do believe in one allows me to better understand where you're coming from. I just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth, that's all!

-- Leslie A. (lesliea@home.com), December 07, 2000.


You know I was going to leave this thread alone but one thing has always really disturbed me. If my numbers are correct, on this planet 9,000,000 children die of hunger every year! Thats a lot of suffering children! And let me know if I'm wrong but the major religious figure, the Pope, still will not sanction birth control! This is the year 2000. I just do not understand! Just gotta get this off my chest...Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

Speaking as a woman who has lost two children to premature birth, the answer as to how I would feel about losing a child for any reason, is that God is in control. I would and do know that my children are with my heavenly Father. Once again it comes down to the basic belief is an eternity with God. As for how I feel about those 9,000,000 children Kirk, muchof that loss has more to do with inefficient food production, war, and neglect than it does with over population. In fact many governments keep people in poverty to control them. I also know that those children are in the hands of their creator.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), December 08, 2000.


Little Bit: 40,000 a day. Mostly under 5 years old. Tick tick tick. No problem its in Gods hands! Tick Tick tick. No over population problem, the weak and young just suffer and die! Tick Tick...starvation.net....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

Background and observations.

Having noticed the world getting more crowded just in part of my lifetime, I used to be concerned about overpopulation. Was/am an outdoors biology, ecology guy for decades and, besides, not especially fond of people as they were not trustworthy like a rock or tree was. But then, the sky didn't fall after the succession of each chicken little. In fact, chicken little lied a lot and was usually just after some grant money or other power. Or some Maoist self deifying control freak.

Did not procreate till I was 42. AHHH! what a difference a child makes. Then two, then three. NOW, I see. So thats why God the Father, only begotten Son, children of God and the other analogies. How advantageous the perspective after a leap of faith. How blind without it no matter how much study and infantile pride of my logic.

In the same way that abstainance is not heredity neither are the mindsets that would self regulate childbearing. And no "voluntary" self regulation would remain voluntary for long. Not with modern society substituting government and governemnt programs for God. But it really doesn't matter. The sun will go nova or cold in a few billion years and in the meantime God is in heaven and all will be right with the world. The nova will be a minor event.

-- charles (clb@watervalley.net), December 08, 2000.


This is off the original subject,but I couldn't let it pass uncorrected. Rebekah, FAS is NOT genetic. FAS is a collection of behaviors and symptoms, both physical and mental caused by a mother drinking alcohol while pregnant. No one knows how much alcohol is too much. With each child the mother has, it becomes worse because it takes more for her to get "happy". These children are NOT born alcoholics. As the adoptive mother of six children with various degrees of FAS, I can tell you that some are very easy and some are very difficult, but all are very worth it. There is nothing selfish about not adopting any child. Only you know what is right for your family and only you know what God has called you to do. Sorry about being off topic, but I don't want to discourage adoption of waiting children

-- Barbara Ternes (lbfarm@hit.net), December 08, 2000.

After reading these posts, I don't think anybody is in denial that the population is increasing. It is and has been from the start. Now the guestion of how much is too much or how many people can the world support is impossible to answer. I have seen noreal evidence that the USA is reaching the point of over population. In my little part of the country (se NC) I see urban sprawl and the effects of it. While I personally don't like to see sub-divisions being built on what was a few years ago farmland, I realize that this is out of my hands. The same thing can be said about world popoulation.

Yes, we should all do our part to help solve or prevent problems that affect all of us. This is why I recycle,give to charity, and try to not be a nusciance to others. While I respect others views to not reproduce, I feel I would be selfish if I didn't continue the gene line that was passed down to me. We can't even begin to imagine the struggle our ancestors went through so that we can be here today. And I will not be the one who decides that it was all for nothing or that I must be the final product they strove for.

Alot of good suggestions have been made as to how we as individuals can help. A few examples are not reproducing, limiting yourself to one or two children, or adoption. These sound fine to me, but won't work for everybody.

To all people here who are raising children, be it 1 or 10, I want to thank you for your efforts. The sacrifice of personal freedom, and probally most of your money is appreciated and you are raising the next generation of citizens to continue our proud heritage.

-- Mark M in NC (MagicMark@aol.com), December 08, 2000.


Wow, I had no idea that this would generate so many posts! I'm pleased that people are willing to take the time and effort to assert themselves.

There are so many different viewpoints. So many creative ideas, and also so many dogmatic, closed minded ideas, unfortunately.

I can't address each of the writers personally at this point--I've got a lot of things I can't put off any longer; I'll check back in later.

Meanwhile, a generic kind of a synopsis, if you don't mind:

There is a very large contingency of folks who see a problem with our current population, or at least with the direction our population is heading in. There are many different ideas about what to do about it, if anything. Some believe that there will be floods, droughts, famines, pandemics, etc, which will "take care of " the problem "naturally". Some think this is a tacky way to deal with the perceived problem. Others believe we need "regulations", or "rules" or something, in order to avoid all the "natural" "solutions'" to the problem. Others seem to think that anyone who even considers population numbers to be a topic of discussion is automatically some kind of Hitler, or Mao, or something equally evil.

Then there are the ones who think we need more and more people. The driving force behind this outlooks seems to be that God told "us" to "go forth and multiply" IF you believe that's what God said, some of us doubt that he meant to do so to such an extreme as we seem to be having today. Furthermore, nobody has mentioned God telling us to multiply EXPONENTIALLY. I can't find any reference to that in the Bible, or any other religious tome.

A third group, which seems to be lead by Little Bit Farm, believes that God guides everything we do anyway, so it's fine not to be concerned about overpopulation. To me this seems sort of like the approach taken by Alfred E. Neuman (am I dating myself here)? A.E.N.'s famous mantra was "What, me worry?" To me, this seems like the ultimate in denial: "Huh? You say something's wrong? I don't wanta hear about it, or I might have to THINK about it, and then I might have to DO something about it." Easier to "kill everybody, and let God sort it out", right?

To those of you who had kind words for me, thank you. To those of you whom I have offended, "God made me do it." "Don't worry about it".

Feliz navida, y que tengan un ano prospero. Hasta luego.

JOJ

Oh, a special note to Hendo, my neighbor: my cookie doesn't feel crumbled, Hendo. In fact, let me tell you that you are automagically a member of the Jumpoff Joe Citizens Advisory Committee as soon as you either move to the valley, or buy property here. Gimme a call when one of those happens, if you want to learn more about it; I'm the chairman. You know my number, yes? Or use email; my address is real.

Kirk, I've been to Latin America many times. The pope, at least as far as I can see, from evidence in Latin America, cares more about the church than the members of the church. I've been to many communities with no potable water, mud streets, hungry kids, houses made of scraps of plywood and tarpaper, but when I go to the Catholic Church, it's a whole other world. Like, gold leafed everything. Huge, incredibly fancy carvings. Stained glass. In some of these towns, I believe that the percentage of wealth tied up in the church is in the high nineties. I think the El Papa wants more and more babies because they all grow up to donate practically everything they have to him. I don't know what the he thinks about all the starvation. Cost of doing business, I suppose.

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 08, 2000.


Pretty good summary, JO Joe. I'll be interested to see what else you have to say.

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 08, 2000.

Wow, what a good topic.

Terri, no kids here. It's nice to sit at home with my feet up watching tv or playing on the computer, and of corse my belly is full!

I think it's easy to forget about the starving people in the world, even the ones in our country. Out of site out of mind. Not many people really want to know. Third world (such a horrible term) people touch our borders. Go tell them that this over population is God's doing, that the reason they're starving is God's plan, or that the sick lacking medicines is also God's plan, and if you truley believe God has a plan, then why is it that only those who have money can take full advantage of his plan. Let me guess. It's part of his plan.

I don't care who or what you believe in, as long as you respect my space then I can respect yours. I can't judge people because they believe in different things than I, or that they have a bigger house than I, no matter what.

When I go to the store with my wife I notice that people really don't look at you, that they are in their own worlds (where ever that may be), Not all, but the majority of people could care less if you fell over with a heart attack, they wouldn't help you if slipped and fell. You are what only you are taught.

I couldn't raise any children, where I have to tell them it's ok to be nice to people, but you got to watch out for those kind of people over there, and also those, and don't forget about those. Well, you might as well stay in your own little world and the hell with the rest.

Reality Forever Eludes Us!

As long as there is one hungry person in this world, then we are over- populated.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.


Wow, what a good topic.

Terri, no kids here. It's nice to sit at home with my feet up watching tv or playing on the computer, and of corse my belly is full!

I think it's easy to forget about the starving people in the world, even the ones in our country. Out of site out of mind. Not many people really want to know. Third world (such a horrible term) people touch our borders. Go tell them that this over population is God's doing, that the reason they're starving is God's plan, or that the sick lacking medicines is also God's plan, and if you truley believe God has a plan, then why is it that only those who have money can take full advantage of his plan. Let me guess. It's part of his plan.

I don't care who or what you believe in, as long as you respect my space then I can respect yours. I can't judge people because they believe in different things than I, or that they have a bigger house than I, no matter what.

When I go to the store with my wife I notice that people really don't look at you, that they are in their own worlds (where ever that may be), Not all, but the majority of people could care less if you fell over with a heart attack, they wouldn't help you if slipped and fell. You are what only you are taught.

I couldn't raise any children, where I have to tell them it's ok to be nice to people, but you got to watch out for those kind of people over there, and also those, and don't forget about those. Well, you might as well stay in your own little world and the hell with the rest.

Reality Forever Eludes Us!

As long as there is one hungry person in this world, then we are over- populated...

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.


Sorry about posting my last responce twice. error was my doing. Sure is nice being human.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.

Doreen & Wendy-was wondering when the Hitler reference would come up.Did you miss Joel's posting on another thread abt.having temp. sterilization mandatory? I didn't notice you pointing your finger at him and crying "Hitler".Why not,might I ask?

I hesitated making the same sterilization statement for fear of being called hitler in a skirt.I was glad when Joel brought it up, instead.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), December 08, 2000.


sharon wt, I can't speak for Doreen but as for myself I'd be delighted to expound.

Generally speaking of course, I tend to look at things on the whole. The big picture if you will. To see one or two threads, or a handful of people with an occaisonal whacked out worldview, I find it beneficial to simply ignore it without comment. On certain occasions it seems reasonable to me to reach out with a thought or opinion. Then there are those times, as with this thread, that it is too vile to ignore, yet as has been suggested, not worth "casting pearls before swine", so to speak. So a precise, to the point comment seems appropriate. I find the analysis to Hitler to be very appropriate. Not only in the physical realm, but the spritual as well. As I believe that Hilter was a type of anti-christ. A picture if you will. Minor compared to what is to come, but stunning if one considers the "mindset" or worldview he offered.....and people willingly accepted.

So there you have it. Curious that you hesitated to express your thoughts, as you mentioned you were concerned the "connection" would be made to Hitler.. it does seem rather familiar.

As to why I did not write this when Joel suggested "temp sterilization" (am not sure if I am quoting correctly here), I go back to the above. Who, what, etc.... I will add that I believe Joel to be a brother in Christ, saved by the blood of Jesus and on his way to heaven. Do I know this for sure? No, only Christ knows for sure. Does he know for sure? Yes, he knows. Any who have accepted know. It is between themselves and our heavenly Father. I trust Christ to work out in Joel (as He does with every child of God) the things He would. As he continues to do with me. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.


Sharon, I didn't see Joel's post about sterilization. If I did see it, it must have paled in comparison to the whole picture being reprsented, or become one with it.

To check out Hitler's platform and see the correlations, a nice trip to any KZ will take care of any misconceptions you might have. You can still feel it in the air.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 09, 2000.


You don't need sterization. I think Bill and Monica were exploring alternatives.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

What's a KZ?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 09, 2000.

Arbeit Macht Frei.....Concentration camps, Sheepish. By the way, that means "Work Makes You Free". Another lie.

-- same as it ever was (animalwaitress@excite.com), December 09, 2000.

Killer Zit?

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

I vote for building a Dyson Sphere. Plenty of room for everyone, jobs for all for the foreseeable future, and they look cool.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

I'm coming into this belatedly but my two cents worth. First---really good discussion and good topic.

Its obvious---we can breed ourselves out of existance because the earth has a limited carrying capacity and life requires certain things to survive---clean air, water, pure food etc.

As LBF says, nature(God?) has a way of taking care of things for us if we don't---extinction of the weak, unhealthy, etc thru disease, famine, pestilence etc. Agreed

LBF and others seem to argue that this life isn't what its all about anyway because there's always the great hereafter so its ok to breed us all into oblivion all in the name of God. As far as I'm concerned thats an abdication of our individual sovereignty under God(natural law). We are called upon to be responsible to the earth and each other.

Eugenics and social engineering is not the answer any more than indiscriminate breeding is. Individual responsibility is.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), December 10, 2000.


It's not God's plan for people to starve to death or go to war. Does He allow it? Yes. He has given everyone free will, He doesn't want puppets. What we see in the world is the result of our free will. Our wanting to do it ourselves, because we think we're smarter than God. Did the devil make us do it? He made the offer and we bought it. It is our responsibility as whole and individually for the way things are.

It seems to me that most non-Christians think Christian are really stupid, this has been portrayed on the tube for many years now. Others seem to think that when you become a Christian you automatically become narrow minded and stupid-a robot, perhaps. Well that ain't the way it is! Christianity is a walk, most people are not prepared for total surrender and too much blessing too soon would be too hard. God wants us to surrender our will to Him, so He can help us to become the best we can-His plan for us. Surrendering your will-dying to self, can be incredibly hard. We all have different backgrounds and heartaches and experiences. {A lot of people think they're Christians because they go to church or are good. Not so.} When we first believe, the blinders come off and then slowly, sometimes very slowly, the scales start to fall from our eyes. It's a matter of trust, which is not easy for some of us, some more than other, believe me. But it's just not our backgrounds that keep us from that trust, it's our pride. Pride being the biggie sin of all. From that pride comes fear, from that distrust, from that selfishness, from that all the hurts of the world, (you can take that down from pride to bitterness to... and then to another catagory) Anyway, true Christianity is not what the world thinks it is. It is the most common sense religion and the only one where it's "leader" died for all people. What greater sacrifice is there, that a man lay down his life for another. I'm not good with remembering scriptsures, Little Bit, Doreen, Wendy and others could give you those if you want them. And from someone who has been to the pits and lived to tell, I can tell you for a certainty, that there is no more wonderful thing in the world than being a Christian and being free from the past. And oh, what blessing to know that Jesus is with us always.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 10, 2000.


Have a couple of questions...Someone wrote that farmers do not breed unhealthy animals and that we humans should do the same, what constitutes unhealthy in humans and just who of us would decide? The scientist, the government, who? Medicine has come along way and what is today considered "unhealthy", tomorrow might be cured. Do you legislate the rules as time passes? Another thought...someone mentioned all of the starving people in the world. Who among us has pets they spend money on feeding. What about the nice house you live in, the computer your on, the luxuries in your life. Why not give all of those up and instead send your extra money to help feed the starving? Because it's not human nature. We take care of ourselves first. I believe there is enough resources, money and medicine in this world to drastically improve the situation of starving people. The problems are Governments, uneven distribution of wealth, resources, education, etc... They're are probably more people that live in New York City than in some African countries. Yet look at the difference. Fewer New Yorkers starve to death. The distibution of wealth is unbalanced throughout the world. How do we balance it? Only God knows and maybe, just maybe, THAT'S what he wants us to do.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), December 10, 2000.

Cindy, very well said! That had to come from God himself!!! And you said you couldn't express yourself that well in writing. I beg to differ with you, girl!

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), December 10, 2000.

Annie, you are honest and dead-on. But not many of us are ready for that kind of sacrifice, so it requires us making some sort of peace with the devastation that exists out of our reach in the world. Otherwise we might despair.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), December 10, 2000.

Hi Anne, me either, not ready for those kind of sacrifices. I wasn't trying to be preachy to the board, so, sorry to all if I sounded like it. It's just seems like nowadays, we jump into trying to solve problems in this world, without getting at the main cause. I can't imagine having 1 child or 6 in Africa, would make a difference in them having good schools, water systems, plenty of food, jobs etc. I guess I just feel like the problem runs alot deeper than how many children you have. Give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach a man to fish and he eats all his life. The people in third world countries need assistance, not legislating how many children they can have. For if we just did that, 1 child would still die, if you don't get at the root of the problems. And besides, I don't think they would take too kindly, us telling them how to conduct their personal affairs.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), December 10, 2000.

"teach a man to fish and he eats all his life"

Until the fish disappear. Which they are doing. Because of overfishing. Because of high demand by this overpopulated world.

-- Summer (tony_dog@altavista.com), December 10, 2000.


By the way, I noticed that one or two people have said that for various reasons humans are no longer "the fittest", as in survival of the fittest vis a vis Darwin's research, primarily (it seems) because they think that being so selfish and wasteful and destructive of our environment takes us out of that heading. WRONG!!!

I am so tired of people mis-representing Darwin's conclusions to mean survival of what human ethics and/or personal opinion decide is "fitness" and what isn't. SUrvival of the fittest refers not to "might makes right"-type fitness that war-mongers and male chauvanists use as their argument for bad behaviour, nor to the ability to live peaceably and wholesomely with our environment, doing the least damage and the most good per square acre of humankind as possible. No, survival of the fittest (as Darwin proposed it) means simply that species who evolve and adapt to keep up with their environment in such a way as to maximize their potential for healthy, viable offspring will outbreed their competitors and win the day, as it were. We definately fall into that catagory with a resounding thud. The whole point being made about overpopulation essentially speaks to the fact that we are one of the "fittest" species around, Darwinianly speaking, and that the only real competion we have is insects and microbes. (Although I realize that many species breed much more effectively and numerously than do we, these two are the only ones that do so in direct competition with us for resources we all share.)

By the way, I chose to have no childre, for selfish and non-selfish reasons, and still think that a Dyson sphere is our best way to go - however until our technology catches up with my fantasies, plague and famine will no doubt have to suffice, as the bugs (of both types) temporarily get the upper hand on us in the Fitness Waltz of life.

-- Soni (thomkilroy@hotmail.com), December 11, 2000.


Thanks bwilliams, and God Bless You.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), December 11, 2000.

A succesful disease does not kill its host! No no it should be a succesful species does not kill its host! Something like that. Never mind!!....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (kirkay@yahoo.com), December 11, 2000.

I think the Survival of the Fittest concept gets confused with the Natural Selection concept. But then I always get Darwin confused with Nietzsche, too. Or was it the other way around? ;)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 12, 2000.

Hi Summer, I didn't mean that statement literally. Guess I should have been more clear, but it's such a complex problem. I just think that if alot of countries were taught sustainable agriculture, crop diversity, rotation, composting, how to take care of their potable water, as in what causes the water to transmit disease etc... those countries would be way ahead. I have been blessed to be able to have any of the information I need at my fingertips, alot are not so lucky. The richer countries just seem to through money at everything, when instead, knowledge is a much more powerful tool. And it goes along with what Soni wonderfully stated. The ones that learn to work, learn and excell with their enviroment are the ones that survive.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), December 12, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ