Is It Time To Consider The Commandment "Be Fruitful And Multiply" Fulfilled?

[meogi]

Scientists never learn.

:biglaugh:

Why don`t scientists explorre the universe within the body & try to spend more on how to cure diseases like cancer.

They do, it's called neuroscience and medicine. And they spend billions every year on cancer research. You want more?

 

[not nom]

Except that the computer is the technology that came even further than they predicted we would be in the 50's. Not to mention far, far more powerful.

that's a good point

however:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

 

[Photonic]

that's a good point

however:

snopes.com: Rand Corp 1954 Home Computer

Where exactly are you going with this? I'm making no assumptions of the future based on current technology, but on scientific facts.

 

[meogi]

that's a good point

however:

snopes.com: Rand Corp 1954 Home Computer

Wait, what are you trying to get across with this link?

 

[not nom]

Where exactly are you going with this?

I'm going nowhere with it, I just wanted to post the photo, couldn't because of hotlink protection, so I googled the phrase in the description to post a link, found out it's a hoax, so I posted that.

I'm making no assumptions of the future based on current technology, but on scientific facts.

oh that's odd, I kinda read that as implying that whatever you/we extrapolate now, might even be surpassed, because that happened with comuters as well. .. ? your post started with "except" and frankly I don't even know what exactly that was in response to. it wasn't like anyone was talking about computers, though technology was mentioned.

and scientific facts such as? that something is scientificially possible, doesn't mean it will happen politically and/or economically, so I don't get the point of that anyway but hey.

 

[not nom]

I don't know, I'm not one of the people studying it. If I had to guess, I'd say it had something to do with the availability of the knowledge. Colony collapse has always happened, and I'd think the 'increase' is due to the farmers being able to share it so quickly with everyone else.

where do you have that from? is that just a guess? I'm not saying "not ever did a colony collapse", but reading sentences like "From 1972 to 2006, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of feral honey bees in the U.S. (now almost absent)" doesn't really indicate what you said.... and that you assume bee farmers automatically I find scary. what about wild bees, bumblebees, others? the horrible thing is, if it wasn't for bee farmers, we might never have noticed! and now that we have, you disregard it with "guesses" such as "it's not an increase, just an increase in reporting"... ? so how did the information age help us? you see, the problem is still people.

are you aware that that guess is also available with NO change in technology ("reporting" can always be said to have increased regardless), and that actually in this context there was no meaningful change in technology?

Colony collapse disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was a well documented outbreak of colony losses spreading from the Isle of Wight to the rest of the UK in 1906. In retrospect, this was attributed to a combination of factors including adverse weather, intensive apiculture leading to inadequate forage, and a new infection, the chronic bee paralysis virus. At the time, the cause of this agricultural beekeeping problem was similarly mysterious and unknown.

the internet changed nothing about this. back then, farmers could also share stuff quickly with everyone else, via letters and whatnot.

Losses had remained stable since the 1990s at 17%-20% per year attributable to a variety of factors, such as mites, diseases, and management stress. The first report of CCD was in mid-November 2006 by a Pennsylvania beekeeper overwintering in Florida. By February 2007, large commercial migratory beekeepers in several states had reported heavy losses associated with CCD. Their reports of losses varied widely, ranging from 30% to 90% of their bee colonies; in some cases beekeepers reported loss of nearly all of their colonies with surviving colonies so weakened that they might no longer be viable to pollinate or produce honey.

http://dont-****-with-the-b.org/blog/

(^ lol)

I'm not saying the bees will die, but in many ways, we're like the dude who tests if fruits are poisonous by eating them :/ that's kinda why I brought it up.

Really? Never? I find that hard to believe,

are you saying I'm lying? I said I never heard of proposals dealing with such things like the gap between rich and poor (I don't mean people having ideas, I mean a formal proposal, and not "how to help the poor", but how to reverse that trend for good). that is a solid fact, you can bet your life and that of everyone you ever talked to on it.

if you have heard of such a proposal, tell me about it.

if you haven't, why is it hard to believe I haven't either?

Life tends to organize itself in a hierarchy. Inequality seems built into the system. But technology has reached a point where we can actually start changing that norm.

notice the "can". notice how the preceding sentences would mean that would be going against "life itself", so how is that supposed to be comforting?

you should hear what one of the computer pioneers, joseph weizenbaum, said about technology... it can be used to empower, or for power and greed. it is mostly used for latter. technology itself can NOT change that. humans do it, humans need to change it. the internet helps where it's people, and sucks where it's TV. it gives, and it takes.

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore

 

[meogi]

is that just a guess?

Given my statement, if I had to guess...

the internet changed nothing about this. back then, farmers could also share stuff quickly with everyone else, via letters and whatnot.

Do you really believe that statement?

are you saying I'm lying?

No, of course not. Our definitions of proposal differed. I didn't know you were referring to formal proposals (my understanding was of presented ideas).

so how is that supposed to be comforting?

Because in the past, it wouldn't be even remotely possible?

I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore

You're not the only one! Sadly, I don't think our discussion is going to have much impact.

Try not to let discussions like this get to you... you seem very stressed!

 

[not nom]

Do you really believe that statement?

yes. certainly when it comes to beekeepers in the last 100 years. letters, journals, newpapers, internet, no huge difference. this isn't home video we're talking about, but a profession sharing news about something very important to them.

Because in the past, it wouldn't be even remotely possible?

well yeah, I'm not saying technology doesn't amplify. for good and bad, and it makes a lot of things possible, dirt cheap or even free.

Try not to let discussions like this get to you... you seem very stressed!

that is a movie quote it's a good movie, I recommend it muchly.

[youtube]uCVUPDYwC4w[/youtube]
Network - Mad As Hell - YouTube

it also reminds me of my skepticism:

[youtube]BqEcLlp_Big[/youtube]
Network -- Corporate Cosmology - YouTube

rawr! aggression isn't stress, though it can be stressful of course ^^

 

[Falvlun]

Host Dave Rutledge asks if it's time for religious leaders around the world to stop encouraging their flocks to keep having large families.

Some of the points touched on in the show include the U.N. projecting world population to continue increasing at least till 2050. Some analysts observing the growing accumulating problems hampering continued increase in food production totals -- droughts, floods, topsoil loss and related soil degradation, and growing water scarcity in food-producing regions, are even wondering if the present number of 7 billion can be sustained for much longer.

Some of the guests...at least one Catholic Bishop interviewed, seem completely out to lunch and totally oblivious to an impending crisis -- the bishop argues that shrinking family size in the developed world is the greater concern. But there are others who at least realize that many places in the world are in trouble. Up till now, religion has been a force for maintaining the status quo, or even trying accelerate population growth. Can the World's major religions shift their goals and teachings to tell their people to stop at 2 children per family?

Great OP, Work in Progress. Our out-of-control growth in population needs much more attention than it has been receiving. Yes, we need to support green energy and less meat eating. Yes, we need to support conservation efforts of at risk habitats and species. Yes, we need to use less electricity and recycle more.

But you rarely hear the green crowd-- even when preaching to the choir-- talk about reducing the population. And ultimately, that is what will make everything easier.

Religions have great power for good. They have a huge audience, across cultures, across the world, audiences which will tend to believe and act upon what their religious leaders say they should do. It would be a true "godsend" if they would take up this cause.

Since the thread has largely ignored this aspect of the OP p), I wanted to bring it back to attention. For any of the religious RFers, what do you think the chances are of your religious leaders supporting population control?

 

[work in progress]

Great OP, Work in Progress. Our out-of-control growth in population needs much more attention than it has been receiving. Yes, we need to support green energy and less meat eating. Yes, we need to support conservation efforts of at risk habitats and species. Yes, we need to use less electricity and recycle more.

But you rarely hear the green crowd-- even when preaching to the choir-- talk about reducing the population. And ultimately, that is what will make everything easier.

Thanks for the kind words!
I think part of the reason why everyone became afraid to talk about overpopulation has a lot to do with how badly the issue was handled in places like India and China. China still has their one-child policy; which has led to late-term abortion and infanticide in many cases because a son is preferred to a daughter. And in India, there were forced sterilization programs carried out -- mostly among low caste Hindus in poorer parts of the country. And environmental impact isn't just a matter of population. The individual amount of energy, carbon production, and resource usage have to be multiplied by the number of people. So, 300 million Americans produce almost as much carbon emissions as 1.3 billion Chinese. But since China, India, and other developing nations are trying to "develop" an American lifestyle for the most part-- the trend is established that they are trying to move in our direction in energy and resource usage. So, both issues have to be addressed together.

Religions have great power for good. They have a huge audience, across cultures, across the world, audiences which will tend to believe and act upon what their religious leaders say they should do. It would be a true "godsend" if they would take up this cause.

I came across a surprising story awhile back, that has gone mostly unreported in the West: this article in The Guardian four or five years ago, tells of a dispute between the Iranian President - Ahmadinejad, and the Ayatollahs, over a policy of birth control and population stabilization. It seems that Ahmadinejad wanted to end birth control policies that discourage newly married couples from having more than two children. It seems that this policy (which I never heard reported before) was put in place after the Iranian Revolution, and Ayatollah Khomeini called for higher birth rates:

Mr Ahmadinejad’s call for a higher birth rate echoes a similar demand by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the triumph of Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979. The policy led to a population explosion but was later reversed because of the strain on the economy. As a result, population growth dropped from an all-time high of 3.2% in 1986 to around 1.2% today, similar to that of the United States.

His comments amounted to an attack on official policies - sanctioned by senior Islamic clerics - aimed at limiting Iran’s population, currently around 70 million. The government supports a range of birth control measures, including female sterilisation, vasectomies and mandatory family planning classes for newly-weds. Iran also has a state-owned condom factory.
​

We knew all along that the Ayatollahs are the real power, but what's surprising here is that we have the most conservative, patriarchal, fundamentalist clerics setting up very pragmatic policies to deal with overcrowded cities and water shortages. So, if they can do it, why can't the Catholic Church change their policies on birth control and stop the delusional claims that there's lots of room for more?

Since the thread has largely ignored this aspect of the OP p), I wanted to bring it back to attention. For any of the religious RFers, what do you think the chances are of your religious leaders supporting population control?

Yes! I don't mind all the other aspects of this issue being up for debate; but I'm a little disappointed that so few of the people who love to argue about religion, aren't weighing in on how their particular religion is dealing with this issue.

 

[krsnaraja]

Except all the scientists were the ones against the use of it.

Another misuse of science for politics.

Was US Pres. Truman a scientist?

 

[Magic Man]

just stating that doesn't constitute an argument.

You're right, which is why it wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to be a presentation of facts.

 

[Magic Man]

What false beliefs?

The false belief that we'll never get to the point of colonizing, or attempting to colonize, other planetoids.

You guys think that just because I don't buy into your geeky little Star Trek that I have violayed one of the most sacred tenets of your faith.

Nope. We act like you are wrong for pretending you're certain of something you can't possible be certain of. We act like you're wrong for pretending that it's not possible for us to move off of Earth. We also act like there's something wrong with your attitude when you use terms like "geeky little Star Trek" and "tenets of your faith".

The fact is it's likely we'll have the technology to start building things on places like the moon relatively soon (within 100-200 years, most likely). No one is saying that will happen without a doubt, and it'll happen in the next 20 years. But chances are better that it will happen at some point than that it won't happen ever.

 

[Majikthise]

The dropping of atom bombs on Japan had at least two great benefits.
It brought the war in the pacific to a much earlier close than we would have seen and it let everyone on the planet realise the full potential of these weapons and why we should not use them again. If not there they would have been used later somewhere else with even more destructive results.
The power exsists, everyone had o learn the hard way, end of story.

 

[Father Heathen]

What false beliefs? You guys think that just because I don't buy into your geeky little Star Trek that I have violayed one of the most sacred tenets of your faith.

No one has suggested anything remotely comparable to Star Trek. Perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion if reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

[Father Heathen]

Stephen Hawking Says Humanity Won't Survive Without Leaving Earth | Space.com

Or perhaps Stephen Hawking is just another dumdum.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We need vegetarianism NOW.

Much cheaper to feed people on it.

I'd eat vegetables if they were'nt so hard to get out of the wheelchair.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This week, there has been a lot of stories (at least from media I follow) regarding the U.N. estimate that the World now has 7 billion people. I don't start many threads here, and I am surprised that no one else picked up the ball and has been interested in getting this subject up for discussion.

A couple of centuries ago, Thomas Malthus made a dire prediction of what would eventually happen to England and the rest of the world some time in the future. Malthus concluded that population increases exponentially and cannot be stopped from increasing before a major brings it to an end. I was listening to a podcast of the Australian ABC Religion show over the weekend. On this week's episode: Multiplication, Host Dave Rutledge asks if it's time for religious leaders around the world to stop encouraging their flocks to keep having large families.

Some of the points touched on in the show include the U.N. projecting world population to continue increasing at least till 2050. Some analysts observing the growing accumulating problems hampering continued increase in food production totals -- droughts, floods, topsoil loss and related soil degradation, and growing water scarcity in food-producing regions, are even wondering if the present number of 7 billion can be sustained for much longer.

Some of the guests...at least one Catholic Bishop interviewed, seem completely out to lunch and totally oblivious to an impending crisis -- the bishop argues that shrinking family size in the developed world is the greater concern. But there are others who at least realize that many places in the world are in trouble. Up till now, religion has been a force for maintaining the status quo, or even trying accelerate population growth. Can the World's major religions shift their goals and teachings to tell their people to stop at 2 children per family?

Another issue that is touched on and should have been given more detail, is that the problems associated with human impact on the environment are not based solely on population numbers. For example, America - with only 300 million of that 7 billion, uses more than one quarter of the World's energy and natural resources; so the ecological footprint of the average American is much bigger than the farmer in sub-sahara Africa! The problem with resource consumption issues is that the trend up till now, has been for the rest of the world to try to catch up to U.S. and western consumption levels, rather than for the developed nations to do much about reducing their impact on the environment!

The conclusion from many leading ecologists, who are trying to determine what sustainable levels of resource use, energy use, and population would be, is that both world population and consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources is mere decades away from collapse, and need to be reduced in the future.
7 Billion and Counting: Welcome to a Planet With Population Overload and Resources in Crisis [With Photos From National Geographic]

Until such time as God revokes the commandment then it is still in effect as long as you wish to put it in that context.

In the context you have presented though, I've been hearing the same complaint for as long as I can remember and the pop. was under 4 bill.

 

[Magic Man]

Stephen Hawking Says Humanity Won't Survive Without Leaving Earth | Space.com

Or perhaps Stephen Hawking is just another dumdum.

Well, he is pretty nerdy, so I bet he gets his ideas from Star Trek.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Stephen Hawking Says Humanity Won't Survive Without Leaving Earth | Space.com

Or perhaps Stephen Hawking is just another dumdum.

Hawkings is no rocket scientist. He also rants about in-coming alien probes.