T
Thing
Guest
- Durnit *… you see, - I knew I did not say that. That was something *you *said, Leela.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
So your masterful plan is to continue on a course that will end up killing billions?I say - let the people live. The gnu’s do and the zebra do live unfettered. No, not even the lemmings kill themselves, nature looks after them all.
T
Thing
Guest
Absolutely!So your masterful plan is to continue on a course that will end up killing billions?
L
Leela
Guest
Yeah, but the pope wants people to procreate specifically in Europe more than they are already doing. Why is that?Me and the Pope would say to man, ! go, multiply !, 'cause thats what the Big Invisable Sky God said - go, multiply !
- Durnit *… you see, - I knew I did not say that. That was something *you *said, Leela.
T
Thing
Guest
Because they don’t want to?Yeah, but the pope wants people to procreate specifically in Europe more than they are already doing. Why is that?
T
tjm190
Guest
Have you ever studied biology? Population growth is self limiting- the prevalence of disease and starvation in the third world is a symptom of the fact that those regions are already beyond their ‘equilibrium’ population. You run into issues when the environment takes a hit and suddenly it can support far less people than it could in the past- say, desertification in Africa or a dust bowl.I agree that at the moment, over-population is not a problem that we need to concern ourselves with.
What would you propose we do if the Earth began getting dangerously close to over-population?
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
You have to love the ‘progressives,’ or whatever they label themselves these days: forever defying God’s laws, forever patting themselves on the back for it.
I
Ismael
Guest
Evolutionary changes do not take place in few generations… non even a few hundreds generations (except in very very rare cases).If by evolved we mean survival of the “species,” then are American’s less-evolved than other nations?
Procreation here is less than many other, particularly 3rd world countries. We contracept and even advertise methods in magazines, radio, etc… We abort. Many American men look for consequence-free sex. Porn doesn’t reproduce. Women commit to professional work far more than raising children than in decades past. The Europeans could fall under this umbrella too with the Pope a few years ago urging them to reproduce more.
Modern humans are not significally differenttha humans 2000 years ago for example… sure there are changes but those depend on change of diet, lifestyle and environment, not ‘evolutionaru change’.
To make a long answer short: No you americans are not less evolved than other people.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I think that’s what we’re trying to avoid… The world has too many human beings living a lifestyle that is unsustainable in the long term…Have you ever studied biology? Population growth is self limiting- the prevalence of disease and starvation in the third world is a symptom of the fact that those regions are already beyond their ‘equilibrium’ population. You run into issues when the environment takes a hit and suddenly it can support far less people than it could in the past- say, desertification in Africa or a dust bowl.
What happens when everyone in China and India decides they want to live in a two car home as well?
T
Thing
Guest
You can only afford a two car lifestyle in the usa because somewhere else in the world there is 2 billion cheap workers on slave wages.I think that’s what we’re trying to avoid… The world has too many human beings living a lifestyle that is unsustainable in the long term…
What happens when everyone in China and India decides they want to live in a two car home as well?
With a reduced population you will have a reduced lifestyle. No more two car luxury lifestyle for you. A ‘smaller-population’ only works when it is the luxury-living population who reduces their own numbers to maintain their lifestyle. If you reduce the overall population you are not making life any easier for poverty striken countries. If you want to engineer society try instead to wean first world countries off their luxury to a more simple existance, this eases the pressure on third world countries who press workers into ever lower paying factories to service the first world love of luxury. So both third world countries and first world countries can look to their own small farming, fishing and natural resourse and local industry to keep themselves in comfort and take the pressure off a materialistic world.
A
Andy_III
Guest
Certainly it isn’t an issue at the moment, since the entire population of the world could live in an area the size of Texas comfortably.I agree that at the moment, over-population is not a problem that we need to concern ourselves with.
What would you propose we do if the Earth began getting dangerously close to over-population?
How do you define over-population? As technology increases, our planet can support more people (and potentially provide more places than just the planet). That is, if there are enough people alive who know how to do science and engineering.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
If the population was reduced though, there would be more resources pro rata. In any case, I agree with you, we’ve made 2 billion people our victims, and that is totally un-Christlike. Shame, shame, shame!You can only afford a two car lifestyle in the usa because somewhere else in the world there is 2 billion cheap workers on slave wages.
With a reduced population you will have a reduced lifestyle. No more two car luxury lifestyle for you. A ‘smaller-population’ only works when it is the luxury-living population who reduces their own numbers to maintain their lifestyle. If you reduce the overall population you are not making life any easier for poverty striken countries. If you want to engineer society try instead to wean first world countries off their luxury to a more simple existance, this eases the pressure on third world countries who press workers into ever lower paying factories to service the first world love of luxury. So both third world countries and first world countries can look to their own small farming, fishing and natural resourse and local industry to keep themselves in comfort and take the pressure off a materialistic world.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
It’s not about how many people can live in what physical space, it’s about what resources are needed to keep these people alive… You also need space to grow enough food for all the people to eat and to provide enough energy to keep them warm.Certainly it isn’t an issue at the moment, since the entire population of the world could live in an area the size of Texas comfortably.
How do you define over-population? As technology increases, our planet can support more people (and potentially provide more places than just the planet). That is, if there are enough people alive who know how to do science and engineering.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
So there’s this early-morning infomercial, at a time when every other infomercial is telling you how to have a smaller butt or whiter teeth.
This infomercial is different. It’s called Green Planet or something like it—it starts out with syrupy music and lush cinematography and some Deep Announcer Voice goes, “NATURE provides us with all we need, blah blah, the PLANET gives humans everything we need to blah blah—”
(Dramatic sinister music)
“BUT,” it goes on, “With pollution and OVERPOPULATION…”
That’s all you need to hear to understand you are listening to the latest in scientism, fascism: Green Marxism. There is no God in this equation, no question of who actually created ‘the planet’ and who gave us dominion over it.
None of that is addressed. We are just hammered with the mantra: “We gotta save the PLANET.”
What is this, the 70s?
Save the planet from whom?
For whom?
What are the answers to those questions? If you follow the money and dig deep enough, the answer is always 'Save the planet from Undesirables. Like human babies, races we don’t like, and old sick people."
Look up Margaret Sanger and her poisonous philosophy.
‘Save the planet FOR people like us: the elite, the progressives, the scientists, the utilitarian bioethicists, those of us who CARE. And the mosquitoes. Let’s not forget them.’
Peter Singer, ladies and gentlemen.
How many Africans have died from malaria since the banning of DDT?
Save the planet. But for what?
Who made ‘the planet,’ and all else? Who gave us souls to be saved and sent His Son to save them?
Was it Peter Singer? Margaret Sanger? The current regime? Captain Planet?
If you get the answer, they can’t fool you again.
This infomercial is different. It’s called Green Planet or something like it—it starts out with syrupy music and lush cinematography and some Deep Announcer Voice goes, “NATURE provides us with all we need, blah blah, the PLANET gives humans everything we need to blah blah—”
(Dramatic sinister music)
“BUT,” it goes on, “With pollution and OVERPOPULATION…”
That’s all you need to hear to understand you are listening to the latest in scientism, fascism: Green Marxism. There is no God in this equation, no question of who actually created ‘the planet’ and who gave us dominion over it.
None of that is addressed. We are just hammered with the mantra: “We gotta save the PLANET.”
What is this, the 70s?
Save the planet from whom?
For whom?
What are the answers to those questions? If you follow the money and dig deep enough, the answer is always 'Save the planet from Undesirables. Like human babies, races we don’t like, and old sick people."
Look up Margaret Sanger and her poisonous philosophy.
‘Save the planet FOR people like us: the elite, the progressives, the scientists, the utilitarian bioethicists, those of us who CARE. And the mosquitoes. Let’s not forget them.’
Peter Singer, ladies and gentlemen.
How many Africans have died from malaria since the banning of DDT?
Save the planet. But for what?
Who made ‘the planet,’ and all else? Who gave us souls to be saved and sent His Son to save them?
Was it Peter Singer? Margaret Sanger? The current regime? Captain Planet?
If you get the answer, they can’t fool you again.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Do you think God will be pleased that we’re wrecking his planet?So there’s this early-morning infomercial, at a time when every other infomercial is telling you how to have a smaller butt or whiter teeth.
This infomercial is different. It’s called Green Planet or something like it—it starts out with syrupy music and lush cinematography and some Deep Announcer Voice goes, “NATURE provides us with all we need, blah blah, the PLANET gives humans everything we need to blah blah—”
(Dramatic sinister music)
“BUT,” it goes on, “With pollution and OVERPOPULATION…”
That’s all you need to hear to understand you are listening to the latest in scientism, fascism: Green Marxism. There is no God in this equation, no question of who actually created ‘the planet’ and who gave us dominion over it.
None of that is addressed. We are just hammered with the mantra: “We gotta save the PLANET.”
What is this, the 70s?
Save the planet from whom?
For whom?
What are the answers to those questions? If you follow the money and dig deep enough, the answer is always 'Save the planet from Undesirables. Like human babies, races we don’t like, and old sick people."
Look up Margaret Sanger and her poisonous philosophy.
‘Save the planet FOR people like us: the elite, the progressives, the scientists, the utilitarian bioethicists, those of us who CARE. And the mosquitoes. Let’s not forget them.’
Peter Singer, ladies and gentlemen.
How many Africans have died from malaria since the banning of DDT?
Save the planet. But for what?
Who made ‘the planet,’ and all else? Who gave us souls to be saved and sent His Son to save them?
Was it Peter Singer? Margaret Sanger? The current regime? Captain Planet?
If you get the answer, they can’t fool you again.
T
Thing
Guest
And though I would’nt claim to know do you think it may also be un-Mohamad like, un-Abraham like, un-Budda like, etc., etc.If the population was reduced though, there would be more resources pro rata. In any case, I agree with you, we’ve made 2 billion people our victims, and that is totally un-Christlike. Shame, shame, shame!
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I know little about the doctrines of any of these religions… I have however read the gospels of Christ and am aware of the kind of regard he held economic bullies in… As you know yourself, he personally took charge of whipping them to the gates of the temple…And though I would’nt claim to know do you think it may also be un-Mohamad like, un-Abraham like, un-Budda like, etc., etc.
T
Thing
Guest
Ah… It was only that you seemed to accuse only one group, the Christians, of being unChristlike, or unlike their own ideal leader or founder, in the worlds treatment of the poorer nations. But do you think all religions are responsible also. Why did you not mention other religions?I know little about the doctrines of any of these religions… I have however read the gospels of Christ and am aware of the kind of regard he held economic bullies in… As you know yourself, he personally took charge of whipping them to the gates of the temple…
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Two reasons.Ah… It was only that you seemed to accuse only one group, the Christians, of being unChristlike, or unlike their own ideal leader or founder, in the worlds treatment of the poorer nations. But do you think all religions are responsible also. Why did you not mention other religions?
- This is a Catholic forum, not a Muslim or Bhuddist one, and 2) Because I don’t like lecturing on subjects I know nothing about…
T
Thing
Guest
But you said;Two reasons.
- This is a Catholic forum, not a Muslim or Bhuddist one, and 2) Because I don’t like lecturing on subjects I know nothing about…
‘…we’ve made 2 billion people our victims, and that is totally un-Christlike.’
Are’nt you assuming that Christians have made the 2 billion people our victims. Europe and the USA, the first world continents, are by no means exclusively Christian. First world continents are also funded by China and the middle east, - areas which are variously described but never really as first world countries, I think. Indeed China is a communist atheist country.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.