toldailytopic: Overpopulation. Is the world really over populated as some assert?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
drbrumley
Well-known member
From Overpopulation Mantra Overheating as Copenhagen Approaches
One of the participants”, Clinton stated, “pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”
“That was an incredibly important point”, she added. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”
Clinton’s comments are no spontaneous thought-experiment, falling out of the clear blue sky. Just a couple of months earlier Mrs. Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award out of the hands of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), professing deep admiration for eugenicist Maragret Sanger. Clinton stated:
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision, (…). I am really in awe of her.”
:sigh:
One of the participants”, Clinton stated, “pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”
“That was an incredibly important point”, she added. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”
Clinton’s comments are no spontaneous thought-experiment, falling out of the clear blue sky. Just a couple of months earlier Mrs. Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award out of the hands of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), professing deep admiration for eugenicist Maragret Sanger. Clinton stated:
“I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision, (…). I am really in awe of her.”
:sigh:
elohiym
Well-known member
It would be funnier if they volunteered to leave the population to save humanity.
Well, I must have been out of my mind to get this conversation going. So that's like leaving.Are you leaving?
lain:...for some people.
drbrumley
Well-known member
From Obama's main top science guy, John Holdren
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”
From the book Ecosceince by John Holdren and the Ehrlichs.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”
From the book Ecosceince by John Holdren and the Ehrlichs.
Shortly? It could be a thousand years away. :idunno:
There's a prediction for you. Christ will return in 3015. :chuckle:
Well, I must have been out of my mind to get this conversation going. So that's like leaving.
You started this conversation?
nicholsmom
New member
Are there no other water sources (oceans, rivers, lakes) from which they could draw instead of needlessly drying out their land? Would slowing or stopping the flow of water from the aquifers, by using other water sources, reverse the problem for them? Still, this sounds like a problem that China (and India, and elsewhere) should address - not the USA.
Where does the water go once it's removed from the aquifer? If the whole thing is a cycle, as we learned in middle school science class, then the trouble seems to be that we are running ahead of the cycle. Can water be returned to the aquifers? What sort of state must it be in for the system to work effectively?
Seems to me that this is more of a technological problem than a population one.
nicholsmom
New member
And no concern whatever about what such a drug would do to the health of the people - the not-having-babies is a fairly serious health risk all by itself for women. But, hey! If it will make the standard of living better (cancer, diabetes, and other hormonally-influenced diseases being rampant, notwithstanding) for those who are allowed to exist, then it's all worth it, right? :noid:
Flipper
New member
Well, to some extent that's true in that there are technological solutions that could alleviate the issues. Shifting the water economy will be amazingly expensive and someone is going to have to pick up the bill.
Flipper
New member
You guys understand that that is a radical position though, right? I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating it.
If it helps, I absolutely oppose coerced population control because I believe that reproduction is probably our only fundamental right.
If we decide to run ourselves into the ground with the throttle jammed open, well we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
drbrumley
Well-known member
True, but here is a guy who has the ear of the President, who has the power to make these decisions. That's a problem.
Well that's comforting.
Zeke
Well-known member
I can't believe this guy was ever let out of his cage! these soft kill tatics are the new way, instead of just the hard kill of abortion, and killing grandma, I can't recall the exact statement by ruth vader on the supreme joke, but it was along this same line as this kind of thinking, this is no different than what went on in germany.
Zeke.
Are you talking about God making provision at the time of creation that will last forever? Or that he is going to continually sustain resources for us?
In any case, God very well may have, but I think it's smarter to act like he didn't.
I clarified in other posts that I'm not supportive of population control measures. The government shouldn't interfere with the right to reproduce. But I also don't agree that we should just have as many kids as possible because who knows, one of them might come up with a great technology to solve all the problems.
King David
New member
There is enough, yea, and to spare...!
There is enough, yea, and to spare...!
Is the world overpopulated? (BTW, I've only read 3 of the 7 pages with postings on this thread - but am responding anyway)
I believe that God designed this world. And, I believe that he knew what would happen on it throughout all of the ages. He knows the future, even though we don't.
First of all, the first commandment God gave to mankind that is recorded in scripture is this—
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill) the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 29)
The Lord, speaking through his prophet, Isaiah in the 8th Century B.C. (or BCE, if you prefer) declared—
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 45:18)
In "our day and time" through his prophet Joseph Smith, God has further said—
12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.
13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.
14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 104:12 - 18)
Someone mentioned earlier that the problem is how things are 'managed'. With that, I would agree. We are not sharing enough, on one hand. On the other hand, too many are lazy and idle, and don't do enough to provide for themselves and their own.
We need to do more to help our brothers and sisters. Humans should take precedence in being cared for before animals, for example.
The problem is NOT overpopulation of humans in the least. In fact, the problem is that humans are not reproducing themselves adequately. The US recently dipped again into subreplacement numbers (2.05 TFR or Total Fertility Rate versus 2.11 just for Exact Replacement).
Clarence L. Barber, economist at the University of Manitoba wrote in 1978 that he believed the first Great Depression was caused by a decrease in population growth. NOW, almost all developed nations have subreplacement birth rates! Fewer babies are born today than were born 30 years ago worldwise. This is starting to bite us back BIG TIME!
God created the world and put mankind on it. He knew what we would do. There are ample resources here. We have to learn to share more and better.
There is enough, yea, and to spare...!
Is the world overpopulated? (BTW, I've only read 3 of the 7 pages with postings on this thread - but am responding anyway)
I believe that God designed this world. And, I believe that he knew what would happen on it throughout all of the ages. He knows the future, even though we don't.
First of all, the first commandment God gave to mankind that is recorded in scripture is this—
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (fill) the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 29)
The Lord, speaking through his prophet, Isaiah in the 8th Century B.C. (or BCE, if you prefer) declared—
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 45:18)
In "our day and time" through his prophet Joseph Smith, God has further said—
12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.
13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.
14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 104:12 - 18)
Someone mentioned earlier that the problem is how things are 'managed'. With that, I would agree. We are not sharing enough, on one hand. On the other hand, too many are lazy and idle, and don't do enough to provide for themselves and their own.
We need to do more to help our brothers and sisters. Humans should take precedence in being cared for before animals, for example.
The problem is NOT overpopulation of humans in the least. In fact, the problem is that humans are not reproducing themselves adequately. The US recently dipped again into subreplacement numbers (2.05 TFR or Total Fertility Rate versus 2.11 just for Exact Replacement).
Clarence L. Barber, economist at the University of Manitoba wrote in 1978 that he believed the first Great Depression was caused by a decrease in population growth. NOW, almost all developed nations have subreplacement birth rates! Fewer babies are born today than were born 30 years ago worldwise. This is starting to bite us back BIG TIME!
God created the world and put mankind on it. He knew what we would do. There are ample resources here. We have to learn to share more and better.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Its fairly simple math
1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet
= 27,878,400 square feet
So 268,581 square miles (the approximate area of Texas) is around 7,487,608,550,400 square feet.
That divided by 6.7 x 10^9 (the current human population of earth) is 1117 square feet per person.
Now you might still argue that the earth isn't overpopulated except there's only around 7.68 billion acres of arable land, that is land that's suitable for agriculture.
With there being around 6.7 Billion people that means that there's 1.14 acres of cropland for each person on earth. That's not a whole lot and this is one of the major reasons why population IS a problem.
Try growing enough food to eat in on a few acres of land in 90% of Texas. There's simply not as much cropland as you think, not to mention the land needed for electrical power production, drugs and all other aspects of modern technology that we value so highly.
Its not due to infertility. People are simply choosing not to have children. Population in the developing world however is still growing. But we in the western world consume far more than anyone in the developing world. Is there enough for every person on earth to consume at the level of the US and the EU? No.
Surely you jest . . . . lower population means more resources to go around. More resources means less need to fight over them.
We don't know how soon the Lord will return. What will he find when he does return? Human beings that have destroyed the planet God gave us to use and care for?
Last edited:
King David
New member
God has never rescinded to command to "Multiply & Replenish..."
God has never rescinded to command to "Multiply & Replenish..."
I think the question might better be, is the world UNDER-populated? Given the number of people already on the earth, the number of children we are giving birth to and raising is inadequate for our need.
We might note, too, that God has never rescinded the command to "multiply and replenish" the earth. The Savior said that when he came again, it would be as it was in the days of Noah. Interestingly, here is one of the big (BAD) practices of the days of Noah as found in the apocryphal Book of Jasher—
19. For in those days the sons of men began to trespass against God, and to transgress the commandments which he had commanded to Adam, to be fruitful and multiply in the earth.
20. And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they might retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.
—Jasher 2:19-20
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The "draught" (or drink) was undoubtedly a herb or concoction to cause a fetus to die, at whatever stage it was at. These would be some of the "unwanted children" of that day and age.
Besides the 50 million PLUS babies aborted in the US since Roe v Wade, there have been countless other millions "prevented" from ever becoming "viable". The "haves" (those who have had their birth) versus the "have nots" (those who will not likely see, alive, the light of day, or take the breath of life), is a war that continues.
Jesus told us to follow his example. He also said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me(/us)!" Babies are little children, are they not? Do "we" suffer them to "come unto us"?
Our nation is in trouble with the "baby boomers" retiring now and soon. The "baby boom" is as much defined by the BIRTH DEARTHS that preceded & followed it. The one that preceded it was caused by WWI, a flu pandemic, a decrease in marriage and morality in the 1920's, and the economic depression of the 1930's, and WWII.
The BIRTH DEARTH following the "boom" was caused by "the pill", an "anything goes" 'sexual revolution', abortion (Roe v Wade legalizing it), and continued iniquity, greed, covetousness, "careerism" (young people postponing or failing to marry, and/or to have children early enough and in sufficient numbers, if at all)!
Certainly, this SIN of denying children birth WON'T bring us the blessing of "inheriting the earth". Remember, Jesus promised those who were meek that they would inherit the earth. None are more meek than babies or "little children". Since we don't generally have veery many any more, this promise will not, cannot, come to us!!!
Repent and REPRODUCE!!!
God has never rescinded to command to "Multiply & Replenish..."
I think the question might better be, is the world UNDER-populated? Given the number of people already on the earth, the number of children we are giving birth to and raising is inadequate for our need.
We might note, too, that God has never rescinded the command to "multiply and replenish" the earth. The Savior said that when he came again, it would be as it was in the days of Noah. Interestingly, here is one of the big (BAD) practices of the days of Noah as found in the apocryphal Book of Jasher—
19. For in those days the sons of men began to trespass against God, and to transgress the commandments which he had commanded to Adam, to be fruitful and multiply in the earth.
20. And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they might retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.
—Jasher 2:19-20
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The "draught" (or drink) was undoubtedly a herb or concoction to cause a fetus to die, at whatever stage it was at. These would be some of the "unwanted children" of that day and age.
Besides the 50 million PLUS babies aborted in the US since Roe v Wade, there have been countless other millions "prevented" from ever becoming "viable". The "haves" (those who have had their birth) versus the "have nots" (those who will not likely see, alive, the light of day, or take the breath of life), is a war that continues.
Jesus told us to follow his example. He also said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me(/us)!" Babies are little children, are they not? Do "we" suffer them to "come unto us"?
Our nation is in trouble with the "baby boomers" retiring now and soon. The "baby boom" is as much defined by the BIRTH DEARTHS that preceded & followed it. The one that preceded it was caused by WWI, a flu pandemic, a decrease in marriage and morality in the 1920's, and the economic depression of the 1930's, and WWII.
The BIRTH DEARTH following the "boom" was caused by "the pill", an "anything goes" 'sexual revolution', abortion (Roe v Wade legalizing it), and continued iniquity, greed, covetousness, "careerism" (young people postponing or failing to marry, and/or to have children early enough and in sufficient numbers, if at all)!
Certainly, this SIN of denying children birth WON'T bring us the blessing of "inheriting the earth". Remember, Jesus promised those who were meek that they would inherit the earth. None are more meek than babies or "little children". Since we don't generally have veery many any more, this promise will not, cannot, come to us!!!
Repent and REPRODUCE!!!
Flipper
New member
Flipper
New member
Fantastic post, Alate.
The Guardian article I linked to a while back made another point in regards to growing a hectare (2.4 acres) of wheat that's also quite relevant to your calculations.
That same hectare of wheat requires 5000-6000 cubic meters of water per year. Intensive agriculture requires intensive resources.
- Status