"We need more breeders, more babies"

[Zzyzx]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

[1213]

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

I dont think there is any Biblical proof for that. Firstly, was this next part only for Noah?

God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen. 9:1

And is earth already replenished?

Certainly that doesnt mean, Overload earth, or what do you think?

I think number of people is not yet the problem. Problem may be our selfishness and greed. Even two people are too much, if they want all.

This leads to question, are those who want to limit the freedom to breed, really too selfish and unable to share this earth with as many as possible?

[Zzyzx]

.

And is earth already replenished?

Replenished from WHAT " a supposed worldwide flood that cannot be shown to have occurred?

Certainly that doesnt mean, Overload earth, or what do you think?

I have no opinion regarding the "meaning" of words attributed to a "god" by unknown writers. Others may be prone to speculate concerning such matters (but are not entitled to claim as factual knowledge their opinions and speculations).

I think number of people is not yet the problem.

Upon what evidence do you base this thought? Do you present it to others as truthful and accurate?

Problem may be our selfishness and greed.

Perhaps it would be prudent to say that selfishness and greed contribute to problems.

Even two people are too much, if they want all.

The entire Earth is under consideration here. Does two people who "want it all" actually fit somehow?

This leads to question, are those who want to limit the freedom to breed, really too selfish and unable to share this earth with as many as possible?

Who, exactly, are "those who want to limit the freedom to breed?" Are any of those people identifiable as participators in these threads?

[McCulloch]

I think that the reasoning of Malthus is still correct. Populations naturally rise exponentially unless there is some countervailing force (predation, war, famine, disease etc). Food production per acre of arable land rises linearly at best. Sometime it will be such that one will inevitably outstrip the other. It must.

[Flail]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

Catholicism seems particularly emphatic as to the encouragement of unfettered breeding....not only is Catholicism anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-masturbation, it is even anti-birth control....breeding more indoctrinated Catholics to fill the pews and the coffers appears to be of paramount importance.

[Names_Bob]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human
population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their
constituency, power, wealth?

Your point is well made, and the issue may be the greatest threat to civilization which remains in our control.

Here is how I suspect the fundamentalist would respond:
"Human population is in God's hands, and is no part of our theology at all. You are stretching the issue of sexual morality (which God's word is very clear about), into us championing rampant breeding in the world. We aren't concerned with the ends involved in God's rules...only the rules themselves."

(Hey, is it obvious I was raised a fundamentalist or what?)

For thinking people everywhere, then, it should be no real problem to ignore these antiquated rules, which are truly based on a principle of an ancient civilization which needs to breed employees for food production.

For example, many Catholics ignore the prohibition on birth control, and rightly so.

For all the rest, they are afraid to think, quite honestly. This reminds me a bit of the hilarious video of Noah and his sons planning to load the ark (found in the Noah's ark thread). Because only thru closing ones mind to the facts would anyone continue to further a literalist agenda, or rail against birth control education. "Don't bother me with the facts. God knows what He is doing."

Here's the problem I wish they would consider: How many millions of people will in greater and greater percentages, decide to trash all of Christian theology, due to these ridiculous claims? Doesn't this go against the Great Commission?
For example, what if the Catholic church forced people to repeat a creedal promise that they believe in a flat earth? Wouldn't that church be doomed to only be left with senseless individuals?

Are some of these other claims and rules not very, very similar?

I contend that if liberal Christianity doesn't make a tremendous comeback, and let thinking people know they can embrace science AND certain comforting traditions of our past, then religion will be dead inside of 100 years.

[Clownboat]

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

No it does not.

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

Not in my mind. I would prefer quality of quantity. This is why my wife and I limited ourselves to 2 children. Us having more children would affect their quality.

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

This, in my opinion is why the Catholic church for example takes the stances that it does. It is a business, and indoctrinating your followers to abide by this helps to ensure that it will continue to have followers in the pews donating to the church.

[WinePusher]

I think that the reasoning of Malthus is still correct. Populations naturally rise exponentially unless there is some countervailing force (predation, war, famine, disease etc). Food production per acre of arable land rises linearly at best. Sometime it will be such that one will inevitably outstrip the other. It must.

Malthus ignored basic things like pricing, productivity, capital and technological advancement. Basically he ignored economics because the discipline was not fully developed when he was around, which is why his works aren't really accepted among economists today. His assessment about food growing arithmetically is factually wrong. Due to enhanced productivity, capital and technological advancements the food supply has the potential to grow at the same rate as the growth rate of the population. Look at it in terms of history for a moment McCulloch, the population has increased by nearly 190% since 1900. Has the supply of food managed to keep up with the growth of the population? Also, Malthus' premise is disputable. He assesses food in terms of population and is essentially saying that food is contigent upon the population. It's the opposite actually, the population is contigent upon food. In the absense of food we would see populations would die out. If food was abundant we would expect to see population grow. This is a 'chicken/egg' situation, and it's clear that food and resources is what ultimately determines the growth rate of the population.

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

On the face of it all it seems to be totally illogical. Personally, I don't think anything needs to be done about the population, whether it grows or shrinks. In terms of economics, poorer families in underdeveloped nations generally have more kids than wealthier families in wealthier nations. That is because the more kids you have the higher your family income will be. The more people in your family results in more incomes. As nations develop and as wealth is created, the size of families has declined showing a relationship between the two.

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

If you look at this issue at face value, the answer would be that an increasing population would actually deteriorate the quality of life especially in market economies because resources would become more and more scarce and prices would inevitably rise. But what has actually happened in market economies is that the quanity of human life along with the quality of life have risen simultanouesly. Take the British Agricultural Revolution or the American Industrial Revolution for example. The growth of the population made both these revolutions possible. Had the size of the population remained stagnate economic growth on a scale such as this would be impossible. Along with that, had these industrial revolutions not occured in the wake of population growth, the quality of life would deteriorate due to a lack of economic growth and wealth creation.

[Uijboo]

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

It makes sense to those whose immediate concern is their country's quality of life. There are countries that actively try to help their fertility/replacement rate so it doesn't adversely affect their economy.

[connermt]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

1) Not likely.
2) Depends on who you ask. Those who seek power and influenece would likely believe quantity is better than quality
3) As with most all christianity, those in control (leaders) seem to feed on power and control. No big surprise there.