THE WORLD'S #1 PROBLEM!

Profile picture of virgodog58
virgodog58
@virgodog58
13 Years1,000+ Posts

Comments: 2 · Posts: 1266 · Topics: 237
OK I suppose this is a matter of opinion but it seems to me for sure that the world's #1 problem is actually OVERPOPULATION. Reason I'm raising this is because for some reason it seems like it's not considered "cool" or acceptable to raise it (like there isome kind of a taboo about it) but I think it should be raised far more often and strongly. It's like, we're always hearing stuff like "Well, the population of the world will soon be ten billion, so how are we going to feed everybody?", rather than "How can we control/limit the population of the world?" It's pretty obvious that this issue has a knock-on effect to everything else, so I would like to know why the hell this issue isn't being properly raised and addressed.
Profile picture of hydorah
The beach is a zone of uncertainty
@hydorah
12 Years10,000+ PostsPisces

Comments: 5363 · Posts: 19122 · Topics: 151
yes and no.
-overpopulation is a matter of POV, the human frictions are annoying, butthere are more ressource available now than in the past
-there is more waste of land nowadays , but it's not necessarily related to overpopulation
-if you lived in the 20s, the countryside and natural areas were a lot less populated, but cities would look more populated than they are now. Living outside of city centers was a lot more difficult than it is nowadays.
-if the human race reduced it's population drastically, we might not be able to sustain our actual way of life and technology.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by virgodog58
OK I suppose this is a matter of opinion but it seems to me for sure that the world's #1 problem is actually OVERPOPULATION. Reason I'm raising this is because for some reason it seems like it's not considered "cool" or acceptable to raise it (like there isome kind of a taboo about it) but I think it should be raised far more often and strongly. It's like, we're always hearing stuff like "Well, the population of the world will soon be ten billion, so how are we going to feed everybody?", rather than "How can we control/limit the population of the world?" It's pretty obvious that this issue has a knock-on effect to everything else, so I would like to know why the hell this issue isn't being properly raised and addressed.



On the contrary, people have been passing this myth

off as truth for a LONG time.

And I get a bit uneasy when people start talking about

reducing the amount of... other people.

Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by Montgomery
Posted by virgodog58
OK I suppose this is a matter of opinion but it seems to me for sure that the world's #1 problem is actually OVERPOPULATION. Reason I'm raising this is because for some reason it seems like it's not considered "cool" or acceptable to raise it (like there isome kind of a taboo about it) but I think it should be raised far more often and strongly. It's like, we're always hearing stuff like "Well, the population of the world will soon be ten billion, so how are we going to feed everybody?", rather than "How can we control/limit the population of the world?" It's pretty obvious that this issue has a knock-on effect to everything else, so I would like to know why the hell this issue isn't being properly raised and addressed.





And I get a bit uneasy when people start talking about

reducing the amount of... other people.



Its either you sterilize or completely reject people over genetic traits they have no control over.

Good percentage of this population consists of self-haters anyway, because life has fucked them over via genes thanks to some bullshit notion of freedom to be born a reject.

Hitler ruined a better future for all of us!

Humans produce supreme gentlemen, serial killers, and pederasts instead.
click to expand





Yeah, hitler failed miserably.

His little empire toppled by the hand of GOD.


Que sera, sera... sucks for you. 😄

Profile picture of Qbone
Qbone
@Qbone
20 Years10,000+ PostsVirgo

Comments: 0 · Posts: 13612 · Topics: 756
Meh..

The Earth has the capacity of host/supporting of the life of 22-25 billions in population. The real problems are the stupidities of the world??s arrogant governments and the corrupt greedy politicians who are doing nothing but to creating wars, miseries, hungers, sickness etc.

Planet is dying gradually by toxic pollutions and ohhh yeah.. Desertification of the Earth??s mantle and pollution of the oceans! Ever heard of the Pacific trash vortex?
Profile picture of AyYildizXxX
AyYildizXxX
@AyYildizXxX
10 YearsCancer

Comments: 0 · Posts: 7 · Topics: 0
Lol at inferior DNA.

Intelligence above great hair, body etc. The men of these harems, hardly god-like in stature, equivalent to today's sugar daddies.

I agree with Qbone, while the majority of the world fails to understand how this earth is really run and for what purpose, we hardly stand a chance.

Freedom is being able to reproduce as you wish so nay to controlling births.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by partiallyimpartial
Posted by KVZZMIR11
From my perspective the only mistake Hitler ever made was not eliminate junkie trash, so they couldn't repopulate and America strongly hates with all its heart every junkie trash that abuses its welfare/foreign aid today.



junkie trash aren't

a "race" or "ethnic group" you ignorant savage. you're delusional if you think that perfectly drug-free

parents can't give birth to junkie children.

you fail at thinking outside the box



Some people are more genetically inclined to become junkies.

Obviously this gets passed down.

Also see Native Indians...LOL.
click to expand




Yeah, they can't drink.


But you're talking about selective genetics--

I posted an excerpt from an article on this a

couple of days ago.


Here's another:


"One potential approach... is known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.

It typically entails testing a three-day-old embryo, consisting of about six cells,

to see if it carries a particular genetic disease. Only embryos free of that disease

are implanted in the mother's womb, to ensure the disease isn't passed on.


However, some U.S. clinics have been using PGD not just to root out unwanted diseases,

but also to allow customers to choose the gender of their child. That, some argue, is

a step toward designer babies.


"Test tube babies were seen as an abomination [initially] but today they are routine and

boring," said Jacob Sherkow, an expert on biotechnology patents at Stanford University's

law school.

"... this is what the future is going to look like."


..................................................................


And speaking of IVF...



UK backs three-person IVF

The UK government has backed three-person IVF, i.e. creating babies using

DNA from three people. The UK government said the procedure will probably

be available in 2015 after draft regulations have been produced.


** LINK.



Nothing is sacred, anymore. :/
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by Montgomery
Posted by KVZZMIR11
It is mind blowing that still to this day there is no one push forward massive international effort to advance genetic therapy.



That's something different than what we've

been discussing, so far.


LINK



Yeah, your link discusses shit for making hens have 20% more protein...or to have drought resistant rice plant.

My concern is gene therapy for human beings will not be
touched by 10 foot pole for another 20 years because it is " genocidal."

Despite there being millions of volunteers.
click to expand





No, it doesn't.

It addresses nothing of the sort.


And you're not telling the truth-- "gene therapy" is actively

being researched.



What is gene therapy?

Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat

or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow doctors

to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient's cells instead

using drugs or surgery.


Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including:


-- Replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene.

-- Inactivating, or —knocking out,?? a mutated gene that is functioning improperly.

-- Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease.


Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by Montgomery
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by Montgomery
Posted by KVZZMIR11
It is mind blowing that still to this day there is no one push forward massive international effort to advance genetic therapy.



That's something different than what we've

been discussing, so far.


LINK



Yeah, your link discusses shit for making hens have 20% more protein...or to have drought resistant rice plant.

My concern is gene therapy for human beings will not be
touched by 10 foot pole for another 20 years because it is " genocidal."

Despite there being millions of volunteers.




No, it doesn't.

It addresses nothing of the sort.


And you're not telling the truth-- "gene therapy" is actively

being researched.



What is gene therapy?

Gene therapy is an experimental technique that uses genes to treat

or prevent disease. In the future, this technique may allow doctors

to treat a disorder by inserting a gene into a patient's cells instead

using drugs or surgery.


Researchers are testing several approaches to gene therapy, including:


-- Replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene.

-- Inactivating, or —knocking out,?? a mutated gene that is functioning improperly.

-- Introducing a new gene into the body to help fight a disease.




Are you still posting LINKS?

They forget to mention that clinical trial where a man died was the final nail into human genetic therapy coffin.

What are these "retroviral" or "plasmid delivery transformations"that are being experimented on humans now?

Enlighten us LEO.
click to expand



No, genius.

It's the text from the initial link that you lied about.

It (obviously) defines GENE THERAPY-- the new topic you

introduced to the thread.


lol

You're so dishonest.

Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by seraph
Posted by KVZZMIR11
GENE THERAPY- They just silent mutated/undesirable genetics and grab both copies from the other parent.

And to fix OP's problem...

A) Offer people incentives NOT to have kids by paying them for their services to humanity by not reproducing.

B)Create a separate state where eugenics are forced and people are free to leave.



A) Some folks REALLY want kids, and money to do otherwise is not a consideration. And besides, you can't really tell folks when they can breed.

B) Not even considering the fact that your eugenics experiment fails both morally and practically - because limiting our biodiversity to a particular "ideal" (if those responsible can even decide what that is [there is no way genetically, for example, to predict a child's intelligence]) limits our capacity for dealing with any changes to "ideal" conditions (and conditions always change) ...

what happens when your little Ubermensch State suddenly decides that it wants a little more




breathing room?


If you want it badly enough, you can probably find a Sudetenland anywhere.

But the bigger problem is that there's always somewhere - in some dark (and boring?) corner, where misguided ideas like eugenics (dragged out and dusted off by the intellectually adolescent and the morally bankrupt) never really sunset.
click to expand



😱

But.... they sound SO PROGRESSIVE!







And you're absolutely right.







I lol'd @ Superhombre. 😄


Some of you folks need to have a look-see at Thus Spake Zarathustra (Nietzsche)

if you think your ideas are new, or even worse... that *this time*, they'll work.



Profile picture of virgodog58
virgodog58
@virgodog58
13 Years1,000+ Posts

Comments: 2 · Posts: 1266 · Topics: 237
My original posting seems to have been misunderstood. I was not suggesting that people should be killed but that population GROWTH needs to be controlled. For example I remember some years ago when the population of Bangladesh was some 90 million and there was talk about limiting/controlling the population there, but these years later the population there has grown to 165 million or more than the entire population of Russia. The point being that surely this sort of thing is unsustainable, though I agree that a fair and effective solution is hard to see.

With regard to the matter of eugenics, what makes me laugh is how hypocritical liberals/left-wing people are when they point the finger at Hitler for example, because back in the 1920s and 1930s (and before) eugenics was a respectable thing and something that both the political left AND right were interested in applying (funny how you don't hear about that these days!)

With regard to what Gandhi is supposed to have said about the world having enough for everybody's need but not everybody's greed, two points: firstly, how can we stop people from being greedy, and secondly even if that was true when he said it 70 years ago it might not still be true today.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by munchykin
It's not overpopulation itself, the problem is people worldwide having kids that they can't independently and adequately care for. In fact, the less a person can afford it, the larger families seem to be. Part of it is a lack of availability/awareness of contraception methods. The other part of it may be more influenced by their and their community's beliefs.

Still, focusing on the part that can be reasonably addressed (availability and awareness) will go a long way in and of itself.



I just can't believe in the idea that huge swaths

of people are unaware of birth control.

I think they don't care.

Profile picture of SirHorns
SirHorns
@SirHorns
11 Years5,000+ Posts

Comments: 75 · Posts: 5976 · Topics: 662
...*watches with popcorn*
That Aqua is not playing games. Totalitarian Aquarian. Cookbook astrogers must be in shock.
Those Leos are awesome though. Clearly fit the bill of good "breeding candidates" that the Aqua talked about constricting humanity into.

As for the topic.
- Natural disasters are happening, global warming adds to their extremes, so humans are gonna die there. Along with all the other wonderful ways humans can die.

We actually can stop global hunger and a couple countries can eliminate poverty, but the method makes their elites piss themselves.

As for the whole limited resource, hence over population thing:
-Multiple countries are below their birth replacement rate. So while places like the US and Canada can use immigration to lessen the burden of support the workforce has in supporting the retired citizens, other places won't be so lucky.

-We can easily push our space programs to focus on the ability to mine asteroids for water, minerals, etc.

-For the one(s) saying little scientists modify humanity into statistically perfect beings. What if they can cure/prevent death or the natural cellular decay of genes?

That's when you can worry about over population somewhat seriously.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by BlackNova
Posted by virgodog58
My original posting seems to have been misunderstood.


exactly
some of the idiots in this thread have reading comprehension difficulties.

You are talking about natural resources and sustainability.
at our current rates of excessive waste and exploitation of natural resources, pollution and destruction of natural habitat, including old growth forests, planet earth cannot sustainably support our current population and our rampant hunger for money and economic growth now, let alone with an extra few billion people.

who ever brought up the eugenics in relation to what you were referring to is obviously an idiot and trying to promote drama via their ignorance.




Eugenics goes hand in hand with the OP's statement, here:

Posted by virgodog58
...
It's like, we're always hearing stuff like "Well, the population of the world will soon be ten billion, so how are we going to feed everybody?", rather than

"How can we control/limit the population of the world?"
click to expand




It's unavoidable.





And lol at the rest.


Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by BlackNova
Posted by Montgomery


Eugenics goes hand in hand with the OP's statement, here:

Posted by virgodog58
...
It's like, we're always hearing stuff like "Well, the population of the world will soon be ten billion, so how are we going to feed everybody?", rather than

"How can we control/limit the population of the world?"




No it doesn't, and you misinterpreted his OP like many others.

eugenics is about 'designer humans' breeding for the specific purpose of genetic improvements, such as what professional animal breeders do with dog/cat/bird species etc.
the OP is talking about sustainability of the human population, reducing our breeding so we don't overpopulate the planet, and how we use our natural resources.

of note, even though the world population continues to grow, from memory the birth rates of wealthy developed nations is slowing, meaning, western couples who are considered to live in wealthy developed countries now produce LESS offspring than previous generations, there are multiple reasons for this but never the less, the world population is growing and unfortunately we live in a mind-state of blissful ignorance regarding the state of our wellbeing, globally
click to expand





Oh my... lol

I marvel at your sweet, sweet ignorance.


Have a google on Margaret Sanger (eugenics, 'racial hygiene') and her method(s)

to curb the 'overpopulation' issue.


This has all been done before.
Profile picture of dofacc
dofacc
@dofacc
15 Years1,000+ Posts

Comments: 2 · Posts: 1652 · Topics: 19
Posted by Qbone
Meh..

The Earth has the capacity of host/supporting of the life of 22-25 billions in population. The real problems are the stupidities of the world??s arrogant governments and the corrupt greedy politicians who are doing nothing but to creating wars, miseries, hungers, sickness etc.

Planet is dying gradually by toxic pollutions and ohhh yeah.. Desertification of the Earth??s mantle and pollution of the oceans! Ever heard of the Pacific trash vortex?



Very good points. The tires on your car aren't going to screw up the planet. The millions of tires that humans discard everyday does screw up the planet. Add in all the other trash humans routinely "throw away." Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, pesticides, plastic bags, on and on and on. It is the shear number of human beings that is the problem. There are no "good" solutions, only bad, worse, and incredibly terrible!
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by BlackNova
montgomery, you are drawing a long bow, my dear

again, as the OP has stated, you and others have misunderstood his intent/question

the science of eugenics has nothing to do with the 'quantity' of human population and everything to do with 'quality'

how other people distort this issue is beyond my control.

===

Eugenics (/ju—?d??_'??n??ks/; from Greek ?_??_—_—? eugenes "well-born" from ?_? eu, "good, well" and ?_?_?_—? genos, "race, stock, kin")[2][3] is the belief and practice which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.[4][5] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics</i>




lol

So simple...

Everyone understood just fine... and they are apparently

familiar with what you are not--

(You failed to run that search, didn't you...)


Eugenics is, and has historically been, the natural

extension of the effort to combat "overpopulation."


And while there is nothing wrong with birth control,

there IS something wrong when government begins to

dictate, or rather mandate, who has the right to

procreate, and who does not.






Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by BlackNova
Posted by Montgomery


lol
So simple...
Everyone understood just fine... and they are apparently
familiar with what you are not--
(You failed to run that search, didn't you...)
Eugenics is, and has historically been, the natural
extension of the effort to combat "overpopulation."
And while there is nothing wrong with birth control,
there IS something wrong when government begins to
dictate, or rather mandate, who has the right to
procreate, and who does not.


like i already said, how you or others choose to distort the issue is out of my control.
and you, like some of the others in this thread have misunderstood what the OP was attempting to discuss.
this fundamental ignorance you seem to express is part of why we humans will continue on our perpetual cycle of stupidity.
and why so many people jump on some kind of, emotive bandwagon, stifling our own potential evolution.
and you have proved by default why serious dialogue regarding sustainability, efficient use of natural resources and waste management, to name just a few issues, on a global and local level will never be fully addressed.
click to expand




Blah blah blah... your refusal to address well-

documented facts shows that you've entered this

discussion armed with nothing but your own ill-

informed opinion.

Par for the course on dxp.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by DarkFire
Humans don't care if they are playing God anymore.

They just don't care, and the rest don't believe.

Wait for the day they announce first real living alien, and use it as a way to abolish God. It will be created in a lab, and be nothing more then human DNA spliced with an animal.

If it were me I'd release the hybrids upon humanity, then send in brainwashed people to kill them off.

It would be written off as an abolishment or even as a message from God, for there is other life, and other entity's. It would also be used as a way to gain complete and total control of the population.



I don't think it's "If..."--

It's when.

Technology has increased-- but as you mentioned

already, compassion has not.




Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by seraph
Posted by Chance15
doing her usual: picking a largely irrelevant aspect of the discussion and trying to make it the focus and then accusing others of being off topic. lol

..and then grandstanding on an inarguable statement that no one could possible disagree with, oftentimes at the expense of something you never even said..like in her last post. That sun/moon combination of hers is a doozy when awry, ego mixed with vanity and subtle manipulation. Stop being so sleazy, monty!..you're better than that (ok, well if you're not then I will accept you for who you are lol)

Great punctuation as always though, luv u monty 😄



She's absolutely right, though. That thing she did in this thread is "foresight."

ANY discussion of "population control" (which usually also means reduction thereof by implication) ALWAYS at one point or another, strays into morally dubious and practically unworkable territory. Which is why it's largely not part of modern discourse in democratic societies in the first place. It's bad "fringe" science at best, and at worst, it's inhumane - an insidious means of playing God.
click to expand




Thanks.


What is the old adage... those who fail to learn from history

are doomed (or maybe *damned* would better suit) ... to repeat it.


Profile picture of CapTenn
CapTenn
@CapTenn
11 Years1,000+ PostsCapricorn

Comments: 15 · Posts: 2575 · Topics: 9
Posted by xy
Problem isn't overpopulation.

It's the lack of awareness on how we impact the world.

Consumerism. Overconsumption.

Mortality rate, birth rate and life expectancy aren't the same for every country. Developed vs. Developing countries. People are living longer while in other places you have people dying before they even reach adolescence.

If the world is actually suffering from overpopulation, everyone will be affected. Shortage of resources and increase in death rate overall.




Agree with this.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by size zero superhero
"By eliminating poverty, IMO"
Or prioritizing formal education ahead of faith in impoverished areas. Rather than throwing god in their faces & collecting tithe from families without pots to piss in or windows to throw it from, why not inform impressionable minds? Quality education changes the trajectory of people's lives for the better. Conversely, organized religion encourages 'em to be fruitful/multiply. Sky daddy handles the complexities & our lives were pre-planned thus nobody has domain over themselves. Prayer is the go-to solution. How will critical thought materialize if doctrines that discourage skepticism & embrace defeatism is the status quo?




Can we get a For Example on that?

The only place that comes to mind where there is

an issue with that is like... Africa.

And still... it isn't the predominant reason they

can't or won't access birth control.

Idk that tithing is mandatory there either. :/
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by size zero superhero
@monty
When I say tithing without pots to(...)the statement is figurative. Few in the modern 1st world literally lack as much. Point is, selling salvation to the disadvantaged benefits enterprising evangelicals, not so much parishioners. Evangelical businessmen intentionally set up camp in poor regions with subpar public education. Megachurches know profit margins are greater in affluent areas, yet simultaneously see their message tends not to resonate wherever quality education is standard & people scoff at notions that science is hogwash & virgin birth. So they colonize the bible belt, darkest corner of the 3rd world or anywhere w/low literacy & high dropout rates.



There are plenty of rackets going on, religious and otherwise.

And it's true-- mega-churches plant themselves smack in the middle of wealthiest

suburbia-- and they thrive.

Hence the MEGA preceding Church.

I'm not familiar with the Church's recent migration to the back hollers of the

Bible belt, because afaik... they never left.

I'm guessing you're not from the South-- but our public schools are just as

Godless as the ones in every other part of the US.

Maybe you're thinking of the old tent revivals?

Idk... but the overabundance of kids and under-abundance of money has more to

do with good, old fashioned sin than any church... I promise. 😄







Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by size zero superhero
And while I personally reject the notion that simply having faith in a higher power or spiritual afterlife is synonymous with overall ignorance, the issue is not belief in and of itself. Moreso it's the bureaucratic BS, opportunism & covert agendas embedded in certain organized religions, that one would have to be foolish to endorse or turn a blind eye to. Overlooking it enables all the Ted Haggards, Fred Phelps & Warren Jeffs that still stand at the altar, masquerading as annointed ones & profiting immensely courtesy of their audience's naivete.



I don't disagree with you on this.

There's more than a few out there that play on

people's naivete or conscience for their own

gain.
Profile picture of CancerOnTheCusp
GFY
@CancerOnTheCusp
12 Years5,000+ Posts

Comments: 433 · Posts: 8306 · Topics: 311
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by CancerOnTheCusp
Posted by KVZZMIR11


Other than reduction of resources humanity can not be threatened by natural forces.

Humans monopolize the earth.



Humanity may be the dominant species at the moment, but so we're dinosaurs.

Hurricanes like Katrina, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteors, massive coronal ejections...... those are all things that can threaten humanity.




LOL @ Dinosaurs!

But isn't human able to mitigate selection pressures?

The very fact man can alter his environment so radically is one of BILLION advantages he has over dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs couldn't do that at same extent as humans.

click to expand




Granted, man can alter his environment to some extent, but those naturally occurring events (especially coronal mass ejections and meteors) are things that potentially could wipe out humanity in the blink of an eye, nt to mention that supervolcano beneath Yellowstone.
I'm not so full of hubris to think humankind is invincible when up against Mother Nature.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Posted by Montgomery
Posted by size zero superhero
And while I personally reject the notion that simply having faith in a higher power or spiritual afterlife is synonymous with overall ignorance, the issue is not belief in and of itself. Moreso it's the bureaucratic BS, opportunism & covert agendas embedded in certain organized religions, that one would have to be foolish to endorse or turn a blind eye to. Overlooking it enables all the Ted Haggards, Fred Phelps & Warren Jeffs that still stand at the altar, masquerading as annointed ones & profiting immensely courtesy of their audience's naivete.



I don't disagree with you on this.

There's more than a few out there that play on

people's naivete or conscience for their own

gain.



It is not their fault they are just making a killing on YOUR misinterpretation of the scriptures.

click to expand




It's a great show... lots of drama and emotional appeal.

People get what they're looking for, most times.
Profile picture of Montgomery
Montgomery
@Montgomery
12 Years10,000+ Posts

Comments: 552 · Posts: 18848 · Topics: 149
Posted by size zero superhero
"I'm guessing you're not from the South...overabundance of kids and under-abundance of money has more todo with good old fashioned sin"
From a southern state but not bible belt territory. Regarding personal fault VS religious culture? Many dominant sects condemn contraceptives & push abstinence only sex ed. Moral policing & fear help turn churchgoers against birth control & not to mention annexing women's clinics. Knowing full well this is irresponsible, esp relative to the poor, parishioners will likely attend service w/flocks of unplanned kids. Quantitative expansion, new stock.



Protestants don't have a problem with contraception.

Catholics do.


I don't think that poor, married Catholic couples are at

the forefront of this issue, but ... I could be wrong.


I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, about churches "annexing

women's clinics"... or how that would apply.

OB/Gyn services are not strictly the domain of abortion providers.