[dorto]

im a religous person and come from a family of many kids but i dont believe in overpopulation.
i dont want alot of kids and im not getting married early so by the time i start having kids i will only have a few years left to have kids so i wont have that many.

[Greatest I am]

markdohle, on 06 November 2009 - 09:29 PM, said:

The government is. The law of having only one child lead to the killing of many female children. I think however that law has been changed since all those chldren were killed in an earthquake when the school caved in.

Peace
mark

I had not heard this but if true, it will not last long.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

markdohle, on 06 November 2009 - 09:31 PM, said:

Unless you want government regulation, your question does not make sense. For some having one child is too much, so what, should we give out a license to those who can have children? Hmmmmm education would be a good idea ;-); get a dipolma on child rearing before a child can be had. Also putting a limit on children could also have a butterfly effect that would be painful in its fruits.

Peace
mark

True.

The same type of regulations that China has, we will all have in the near future.

It is inevitable.

Regards
DL

[Mistydawn]

Personally, I believe if anyone believes in a good god, then looking around them at the world, seeing only one small child suffering because of disease, war, having no parents/and or no-one to nurture them, abuse, neglect, only say one child, then why in Hells name would anyone want to bring another child into this world?

[Greatest I am]

Mistydawn, on 07 November 2009 - 03:44 PM, said:

Personally, I believe if anyone believes in a good god, then looking around them at the world, seeing only one small child suffering because of disease, war, having no parents/and or no-one to nurture them, abuse, neglect, only say one child, then why in Hells name would anyone want to bring another child into this world?

Because the woes you name are not everywhere.
Even with all that, we presently are not doing all that badly. It will get worse soon I think.

Regards
DL

[Mistydawn]

Greatest I am, on 07 November 2009 - 08:48 AM, said:

Because the woes you name are not everywhere.
Even with all that, we presently are not doing all that badly. It will get worse soon I think.

Regards
DL

Why does it matter where the child lives. Sadly, it's not only one child suffering in this lovely world of ours either.

[Greatest I am]

Mistydawn, on 07 November 2009 - 03:58 PM, said:

Why does it matter where the child lives. Sadly, it's not only one child suffering in this lovely world of ours either.

It would obviously matter to those who plan on reproducing.

Or it should.

Regards
DL

[HAJiME]

I think it's wrong to blame religion for overpopulation, but I think the situation surrounding how religion prohibits sex and then encourages it interesting and worth criticising.

A male having lots of females he can claim as his own and breed with, who are forbidden from breeding with anyone but him, makes (evolutionarily) perfect sense. And I find it wonderfully ironic how religion could possibly be seen as a vehicle for evolution.

Humans are capable of predicting the problems that may come of their own actions, and as such I think more people should be responsible for the individuals they bring into this world. I think it's stupid, and bordering on wrong, to reproduce knowing your child as a high chance of having a deliberating condition, for example... Or breeding senselessly, when you barely have enough food to feed yourself. It's an educational issue, and one not limited to the 3rd world, unfortunately. My brother and his girlfriend can't afford a place of their own to live, but have one child and another on the way. It's disgusting. But I don't want children, so this is all possibly very easy for me to say. There are living examples of how our species fail to have enough resources to keep up with the population, and I don't think it unlikely that this situation will spread into the western world eventually. Banning people from having kids would be stupid, but education is needed, definately.

This post has been edited by HAJiME: 07 November 2009 - 08:07 PM

[Greatest I am]

HAJiME, on 07 November 2009 - 09:03 PM, said:

I think it's wrong to blame religion for overpopulation, but I think the situation surrounding how religion prohibits sex and then encourages it interesting and worth criticising.

A male having lots of females he can claim as his own and breed with, who are forbidden from breeding with anyone but him, makes (evolutionarily) perfect sense. And I find it wonderfully ironic how religion could possibly be seen as a vehicle for evolution.

Humans are capable of predicting the problems that may come of their own actions, and as such I think more people should be responsible for the individuals they bring into this world. I think it's stupid, and bordering on wrong, to reproduce knowing your child as a high chance of having a deliberating condition, for example... Or breeding senselessly, when you barely have enough food to feed yourself. It's an educational issue, and one not limited to the 3rd world, unfortunately. My brother and his girlfriend can't afford a place of their own to live, but have one child and another on the way. It's disgusting. But I don't want children, so this is all possibly very easy for me to say. There are living examples of how our species fail to have enough resources to keep up with the population, and I don't think it unlikely that this situation will spread into the western world eventually. Banning people from having kids would be stupid, but education is needed, definately.

Banning is on the way. We will all eventually follow China. Sooner than most think.

At the same time, to have some families of many children, whatever number that is, should be outlawed and religions will fight this restriction on their perceived right to procreation.

Regards
DL

[Mr Walker]

Greatest I am, on 08 November 2009 - 10:16 AM, said:

Banning is on the way. We will all eventually follow China. Sooner than most think.

At the same time, to have some families of many children, whatever number that is, should be outlawed and religions will fight this restriction on their perceived right to procreation.

Regards
DL

You keep saying this, but the reality is that in the next generation, governments are more likely to be encouraging/forcing people to have children Apart from israel no developed western country has a fertility rate high enough to sustain its own population, and most are reliant on immigrants from poorer countries to sustain their populations. Even in the third world, fertility has fallen dramaitcally and within a generation will also be below replacement level
MAny peole diont realise that the issue of overpopulation (very real last century ) is a thing of the past. Sure our pop will increase for a couple more decades (Due to the age/sex distribution of current populations in devlping countries there are few old people and many young fertile ones) but then it will fall. Already, in many countries, old people (past breeding age)outnumber the young. As they die there will be few to replace them.
In many countries govts are encouraging their citizens to have more kids. Our treasurer in introducing a baby bonus of about 6000 dollars for the birth of a child famously( well within australia anyway) said "have one for mum one for dad and one for the country. He was referring to the fact that unless a woman has more than two children the fertility rate falls below replace ment level and a population cannot sustain itself.

Another solution is for countries like australia to take more migrants/refugees. We are already doing this, but it has a number of problems. First it changes the social balance of a country and brings real social problems.

Secondly, a citizen in australia has about 10 times the environmental foot print of a citizen in a third world country.(they use about 10 tomes the land area to sustain themselves.)
We should be developing the standards of living for other countries to a reasonable level, while reducing ours, rather than increasing our own populations and our own footprints, and thus consumption of the worlds resources. The following source gives some indication of this.

http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate

Remember that for a population to to reproduce/sustain itself,(with no growth) the fertility level must be betwwen 2.1 and 2.2 children per woman.

Anything less than this, and the population will inevitably decline without immigration.

http://en.wikipedia....ement_fertility

This article talks more about the fertility level required for replacement, and puts it as high as 2.3, although i have not seen that figure used in academic sources.
(It does make intuitive sense, given the high infant mortality rates in many countries with high fertility rates)
It also says that it will take longer for populations to decline, but that does not recognise the snow ball effect of declining fertility.

World fertility is declining more quickly than ever, and if this trend continues, present population estimates will prove to be too high.

This post has been edited by Mr Walker: 08 November 2009 - 12:50 AM

[Greatest I am]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2009 - 01:24 AM, said:

You keep saying this, but the reality is that in the next generation, governments are more likely to be encouraging/forcing people to have children Apart from israel no developed western country has a fertility rate high enough to sustain its own population, and most are reliant on immigrants from poorer countries to sustain their populations. Even in the third world, fertility has fallen dramaitcally and within a generation will also be below replacement level
MAny peole diont realise that the issue of overpopulation (very real last century ) is a thing of the past. Sure our pop will increase for a couple more decades (Due to the age/sex distribution of current populations in devlping countries there are few old people and many young fertile ones) but then it will fall. Already, in many countries, old people (past breeding age)outnumber the young. As they die there will be few to replace them.
In many countries govts are encouraging their citizens to have more kids. Our treasurer in introducing a baby bonus of about 6000 dollars for the birth of a child famously( well within australia anyway) said "have one for mum one for dad and one for the country. He was referring to the fact that unless a woman has more than two children the fertility rate falls below replace ment level and a population cannot sustain itself.

Another solution is for countries like australia to take more migrants/refugees. We are already doing this, but it has a number of problems. First it changes the social balance of a country and brings real social problems.

Secondly, a citizen in australia has about 10 times the environmental foot print of a citizen in a third world country.(they use about 10 tomes the land area to sustain themselves.)
We should be developing the standards of living for other countries to a reasonable level, while reducing ours, rather than increasing our own populations and our own footprints, and thus consumption of the worlds resources. The following source gives some indication of this.

http://en.wikipedia...._fertility_rate

Remember that for a population to to reproduce/sustain itself,(with no growth) the fertility level must be betwwen 2.1 and 2.2 children per woman.

Anything less than this, and the population will inevitably decline without immigration.

http://en.wikipedia....ement_fertility

This article talks more about the fertility level required for replacement, and puts it as high as 2.3, although i have not seen that figure used in academic sources.
(It does make intuitive sense, given the high infant mortality rates in many countries with high fertility rates)
It also says that it will take longer for populations to decline, but that does not recognise the snow ball effect of declining fertility.

World fertility is declining more quickly than ever, and if this trend continues, present population estimates will prove to be too high.

Time will tell.
World fertility by country.

http://en.wikipedia....vs_PPP_2009.svg


Religion by country.

http://www.worldfact...om/religion.php


Sierra Leone 5.88 Muslim 60%, indigenous beliefs 30%, Christian 10%

Benin 5.49 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%

Burundi 6.33 Christian 67% (Roman Catholic 62%, Protestant 5%), indigenous beliefs 23%, Muslim 10%

Somalia 6.52 Sunni Muslim

Guinea 5.2 Muslim 85%, Christian 8%, indigenous beliefs 7%

Chad 5.31 Muslim 50%, Christian 25%, indigenous beliefs (mostly animism) 25%

Rwanda 5.25 Roman Catholic 52.7%, Protestant 24%, Adventist 10.4%, Muslim 1.9%, indigenous beliefs and other 6.5%, none 4.5% (1996)

Zambia 5.15 Christian 50%-75%, Muslim and Hindu 24%-49%, indigenous beliefs 1%

Mali 7.29 Muslim 90%, indigenous beliefs 9%, Christian 1%

Angola 6.12 indigenous beliefs 47%, Roman Catholic 38%, Protestant 15% (1998 est.)

Malawi 5.59 Protestant 55%, Roman Catholic 20%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs

Niger 7.75 Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christians

Madagascar 5.14 indigenous beliefs 52%, Christian 41%, Muslim 7%

Mozambique 5.18 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%

Yemen 6.32 Muslim including Shaf'i (Sunni) and Zaydi (Shi'a), small numbers of Jewish, Christian, and Hindu

Afghanistan 6.53 Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%

Uganda 6.77 Roman Catholic 33%, Protestant 33%, Muslim 16%, indigenous beliefs 18%

Congo 6.2 Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 20%, Kimbanguist 10%, Muslim 10%, other syncretic sects and indigenous beliefs 10%

Ethiopia 6.12 Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%

If any do not see the correlation between some religious groups and reproduction that is pushing overpopulation then my math must be off.

Regards
DL

[Mr Walker]

Greatest I am, on 08 November 2009 - 12:31 PM, said:

Time will tell.
World fertility by country.

http://en.wikipedia....vs_PPP_2009.svg


Religion by country.

http://www.worldfact...om/religion.php


Sierra Leone 5.88 Muslim 60%, indigenous beliefs 30%, Christian 10%

Benin 5.49 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%

Burundi 6.33 Christian 67% (Roman Catholic 62%, Protestant 5%), indigenous beliefs 23%, Muslim 10%

Somalia 6.52 Sunni Muslim

Guinea 5.2 Muslim 85%, Christian 8%, indigenous beliefs 7%

Chad 5.31 Muslim 50%, Christian 25%, indigenous beliefs (mostly animism) 25%

Rwanda 5.25 Roman Catholic 52.7%, Protestant 24%, Adventist 10.4%, Muslim 1.9%, indigenous beliefs and other 6.5%, none 4.5% (1996)

Zambia 5.15 Christian 50%-75%, Muslim and Hindu 24%-49%, indigenous beliefs 1%

Mali 7.29 Muslim 90%, indigenous beliefs 9%, Christian 1%

Angola 6.12 indigenous beliefs 47%, Roman Catholic 38%, Protestant 15% (1998 est.)

Malawi 5.59 Protestant 55%, Roman Catholic 20%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs

Niger 7.75 Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christians

Madagascar 5.14 indigenous beliefs 52%, Christian 41%, Muslim 7%

Mozambique 5.18 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%

Yemen 6.32 Muslim including Shaf'i (Sunni) and Zaydi (Shi'a), small numbers of Jewish, Christian, and Hindu

Afghanistan 6.53 Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%

Uganda 6.77 Roman Catholic 33%, Protestant 33%, Muslim 16%, indigenous beliefs 18%

Congo 6.2 Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 20%, Kimbanguist 10%, Muslim 10%, other syncretic sects and indigenous beliefs 10%

Ethiopia 6.12 Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%

If any do not see the correlation between some religious groups and reproduction that is pushing overpopulation then my math must be off.

Regards
DL

Nothing wrong with your maths , just the conclusions you draw from it Aopart from the oil rich countries most muslim nations fall in the less developed world hence higher fertility Most developed countries, partly by historical precedent, happen to be christian(christianity became a world religion by attaching itself almost accidentaly first to the dynamism of the late roman empire and later to the renaissance and colonisation via technically advanced european countries) The muslim world, once superior to europe in civilization, culture, maths, science, etc was left behind.

I t is not the religion of islam which creates a high birthrate, but the stage of development of many islamic nations. They will change (or if they do not, they will become irrelevant in technological and scientific terms, especially once oil supplies run out a little later this century) Either way, islam will not present any more threat to world peace than christianity did, once the reformation and repositioning of christianity occured, starting a few centuries ago.

The reformation and restructuring of islam may take some time, but not as long as it took with christianity, because christianity created an observable precedent to learn from, and also science and society have simply moved on so far in 300 years.

Ps intrinsically i have no problem with the whole world becoming muslim if that occurs by belief and conversion rather than coercion and violence Islam is not intrinsically an inferior or more violent faith It is simply in a different stage of evolution from modern christianity. Neither is isalm the cohesive faithmany like to paint it. There are many more "moderate" and "westernised" muslims, than there are extremists. Again, extremism grows from a multitude of socio economic forces, including a sense of poverty and powerlessness rather than from any intrinsic values of islam.

Moderate islam promotes many of the same spiritual values and social principles that moderate christianity does. Same with judaism, and many other world religions.

This post has been edited by Mr Walker: 08 November 2009 - 12:33 PM

[Greatest I am]

Mr Walker, on 08 November 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Nothing wrong with your maths , just the conclusions you draw from it Aopart from the oil rich countries most muslim nations fall in the less developed world hence higher fertility Most developed countries, partly by historical precedent, happen to be christian(christianity became a world religion by attaching itself almost accidentaly first to the dynamism of the late roman empire and later to the renaissance and colonisation via technically advanced european countries) The muslim world, once superior to europe in civilization, culture, maths, science, etc was left behind.

I t is not the religion of islam which creates a high birthrate, but the stage of development of many islamic nations. They will change (or if they do not, they will become irrelevant in technological and scientific terms, especially once oil supplies run out a little later this century) Either way, islam will not present any more threat to world peace than christianity did, once the reformation and repositioning of christianity occured, starting a few centuries ago.

The reformation and restructuring of islam may take some time, but not as long as it took with christianity, because christianity created an observable precedent to learn from, and also science and society have simply moved on so far in 300 years.

Ps intrinsically i have no problem with the whole world becoming muslim if that occurs by belief and conversion rather than coercion and violence Islam is not intrinsically an inferior or more violent faith It is simply in a different stage of evolution from modern christianity. Neither is isalm the cohesive faithmany like to paint it. There are many more "moderate" and "westernised" muslims, than there are extremists. Again, extremism grows from a multitude of socio economic forces, including a sense of poverty and powerlessness rather than from any intrinsic values of islam.

Moderate islam promotes many of the same spiritual values and social principles that moderate christianity does. Same with judaism, and many other world religions.

Let us pray that all religions evolve away from some alien God who is not a man.

Our first God weas a man and the last will be as well.

Who else but man has ever put words in God's mouth?

Regards
DL

[Mr Walker]

Greatest I am, on 09 November 2009 - 01:37 AM, said:

Let us pray that all religions evolve away from some alien God who is not a man.

Our first God weas a man and the last will be as well.

Who else but man has ever put words in God's mouth?

Regards
DL

I am guessing that you are referring to the islamic concept that god is immaterial while you see the christian god as a physical one. Actually the two concepts are not in conflict. God is both immaterial and physical. Like schroedingers cat, he mayy be both or neither, and what he is may physically be determined by the observer effect.

God is the energy and the matter around us. Thus he is physical but he is capable of self organisation via sapient will. Thus god can become what ever he wishes and arguably everything in the universe is a part/component of god. Not just created by god, but god itself. So god is like all the universe, both material and immaterial. The only difference is that he can choose his shape andd form.
Human perception relates to god in different ways. Some of us see him as an energy force, some as a man some as immaterial. the truth (as i experience it) is that god is all these things and more. God is alien to humanity but he is also human himself in some ways.
It is not so much what god is but what he offers to us which is important.

[Greatest I am]

Mr Walker, on 09 November 2009 - 01:09 AM, said:

I am guessing that you are referring to the islamic concept that god is immaterial while you see the christian god as a physical one. Actually the two concepts are not in conflict. God is both immaterial and physical. Like schroedingers cat, he mayy be both or neither, and what he is may physically be determined by the observer effect.

God is the energy and the matter around us. Thus he is physical but he is capable of self organisation via sapient will. Thus god can become what ever he wishes and arguably everything in the universe is a part/component of god. Not just created by god, but god itself. So god is like all the universe, both material and immaterial. The only difference is that he can choose his shape andd form.
Human perception relates to god in different ways. Some of us see him as an energy force, some as a man some as immaterial. the truth (as i experience it) is that god is all these things and more. God is alien to humanity but he is also human himself in some ways.
It is not so much what god is but what he offers to us which is important.

You do like to spout unproven and un-provable dogma. Are you not concerned with literal use of a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster?

God with a physical body. LOL.

I hope you are not referring to our chimera God called Jesus.

You know, the one born of bestiality.

Regards
DL