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

[CynthiaCypher]

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

And how is that a false belief? Can you prove that we actually will?

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".

If the shoe fits, wear it

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Did he ever actually revoke any of the commandments in the OT that modern day Christians don't feel the need to follow? And if he has (which I think you can argue he has), then why wouldn't the be-fruitful-and-multiply not fall under that?

Also, doesn't God give Adam and Eve responsibility over the Earth? According to the verse, we are to govern it, and I'm assuming the implied context is to govern it well. Can we be said to be governing it well when hundreds of thousands of plant and animal species are going extinct directly due to our mismanagement and gobbling of resources?

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.

Do you believe that there isn't some upper limit that the Earth can no longer support? Or just that it's so far off in the future we can ignore it for a while still?

 

[Falvlun]

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.

That's true. But surely we can start having an adult conversation about it at some point; I guess I can't say I'm that surprised since, politically, adult conversations are pretty hard to come by.

Population control is a hard one. I don't think merely leaving it up to peoples' personal sense of responsibility will work. The drive to procreate is too strong, and if we can't convince them that dependency on carbon isn't a good thing, then this will be an even harder sell. So, I do think there needs to be policies in place which actively discourage having a lot of kids, and encourage having less or no kids. It is a hard act to balance, because at the end of the day, people will have less rights regarding procreation than they once had.

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.

Again, great point, and one I don't think about nearly as often. I tend to assume that pushing for green energy and recycling and such would eventually allow those things to become more mainstream. So, by the time developing countries become more developed they will have better energy and resource tactics ready at hand to adopt. At least, that's the hope.

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? .

It's refreshing to see a realistic approach to this matter. I wonder what the general population felt about it. Do you know, by chance, how it was enforced, or was it an honor system that worked since it was backed by religious power?

 

[Magic Man]

And how is that a false belief? Can you prove that we actually will?

Can you prove we won't?

If the shoe fits, wear it

Yup, and since the shoe doesn't fit in this case, I won't wear it, and I'll explain to you that it doesn't fit, but I guess you can't be bothered to actually listen.

 

[Magic Man]

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

:areyoucra

 

[Photonic]

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

Several things wrong with this I would like to point out.


I happen to be in the same profession as the man, and it is oh so easy to turn my knowledge towards the creation of a rocket.

As a matter of fact, it's so easy that they actually use people of my profession to, wait for it.....



Design rockets. Advanced trajectories required for space flight. Space vehicles, and so much more. Most of what you have originates in the field of physics.

 

[not nom]

so? hawkings is still ranting about incoming alien probes. so even if the argument "he says it, so it must be true" wasn't fallacious to begin with... it would still not work with him ^^

the article isn't about the feasibility of "leaving earth", it addresses it with not a single word. so yeah, he really isn't a rocket scientist, in the context of that article. if he could successfully tackle that side of it, he certainly doesn't in the article, so how is that relevant?

the headline is misleading anyway, the article doesn't actually argue that "getting of earth is our only chance to survive". that is, not successfully, it omits the heat death of the universe. hawking says "before we drop the basket", omitting that ultimately, that will not be a choice. seriously wtf. hawkings must be bored a lot.

ALL he is saying, is that it's better to spread out. yeah well true, and also very obvious to anyone -- I literally have not heard anyone ever say "we should restrict ourselves to earth for this or that reason".

but that we are under threat from ourselves cannot be solved by getting off the planet, packing a few bags and leaving earth "before it gets destroyed" accomplished *nothing*. that would be like a leaf "jumping" from a tree before it dies. that doesn't mean it's not desirable to get off the planet, generally speaking. but not to escape ourselves. that simply will not work, and seriously suggesting that reminds me of dr. strangelove, not progress.

Dangerous aliens may want to take over the planet to use its resources for themselves, he said in the series. It would be safer for the survival of our species if we had people living on other worlds as a backup plan, Hawking proposed.

the only way to avoid that is to settle on a planet with no resources... but does earth really have any special resources? *really*? compared to what exists out there? lol...

and if the resources are "humans and their knowledge" or whatever, then going to "other worlds" wouldn't really help, would it. if you don't leave the solar system, you might as well stay on earth when it comes to the evil aliens under hawking's bed. and if you do leave it, better don't keep in contact. or the evil aliens might find us there anyway. *spooky music*

 

[Photonic]

so? hawkings is still ranting about incoming alien probes. so even if the argument "he says it, so it must be true" wasn't fallacious to begin with... it would still not work with him ^^

the article isn't about the feasibility of "leaving earth", it addresses it with not a single word. so yeah, he really isn't a rocket scientist, in the context of that article. if he could successfully tackle that side of it, he certainly doesn't in the article, so how is that relevant?

the headline is misleading anyway, the article doesn't actually argue that "getting of earth is our only chance to survive". that is, not successfully, it omits the heat death of the universe. hawking says "before we drop the basket", omitting that ultimately, that will not be a choice. seriously wtf. hawkings must be bored a lot.

ALL he is saying, is that it's better to spread out. yeah well true, and also very obvious to anyone -- I literally have not heard anyone ever say "we should restrict ourselves to earth for this or that reason".

but that we are under threat from ourselves cannot be solved by getting off the planet, packing a few bags and leaving earth "before it gets destroyed" accomplished *nothing*. that would be like a leaf "jumping" from a tree before it dies. that doesn't mean it's not desirable to get off the planet, generally speaking. but not to escape ourselves. that simply will not work, and seriously suggesting that reminds me of dr. strangelove, not progress.



the only way to avoid that is to settle on a planet with no resources... but does earth really have any special resources? *really*? compared to what exists out there? lol...

and if the resources are "humans and their knowledge" or whatever, then going to "other worlds" wouldn't really help, would it. if you don't leave the solar system, you might as well stay on earth when it comes to the evil aliens under hawking's bed. and if you do leave it, better don't keep in contact. or the evil aliens might find us there anyway. *spooky music*

And for some reason you think he hasn't thought it out well?

Are you smarter than Hawkings?

 

[Magic Man]

so? hawkings is still ranting about incoming alien probes. so even if the argument "he says it, so it must be true" wasn't fallacious to begin with... it would still not work with him ^^

The argument is that the idea that we'll make it off Earth someday is not silly, nor confined to Star Trek geeks, but is, in fact, quite reasonable. Giving the opinion of someone like Hawkins, who is quite knowledgeable about such things, is just evidence to support that. It's not meant to support the claim that we will definitely make it off of Earth, and it's not meant as "he says it, so it must be true".

 

[not nom]

And for some reason you think he hasn't thought it out well?

yeah, and I mentioned those reasons. feel free to address them, or simply leave it be for someone else who is able

Are you smarter than Hawkings?

lol! smartness is not a number, and his credentials in other fields mean nothing when it comes to what he is spouting as popular science.

and why should he think it through? you guys just prove that he can just say anything, and you simply assume he must have thought it through ^^

but sure, maybe he did, to his best ability, and maybe that's not exactly impressive. there is only one way to find out, address what I said -- instead of giving me a fallacious reason why that isn't even necessary.

 

[not nom]

The argument is that the idea that we'll make it off Earth someday is not silly, nor confined to Star Trek geeks, but is, in fact, quite reasonable. Giving the opinion of someone like Hawkins, who is quite knowledgeable about such things, is just evidence to support that.

but he doesn't argue for it. he says we should get off earth, here are some reasons. that is *ALL* the article is about. he lists a few very trivial phenomena. and ends with something even grandma knew, don't put your eggs in one basket.

well wow. remove the name stephen hawking, read it again. it's utterly trivial.

so no. he's not perfect, and even hawkings needs arguments. saying that "we need to get off earth because something might happen" implies it should be possible in the next 100-200 years, is quite the jump. that's not even what he is saying, and if he said it, even he would need to argue for it.

much less argue for how that is preferable to solving the situation here. how can overpopulation by solved by sending people elsewhere? sorry, that is so dumb the only reason we're still talking about it, is because it's so dumb. it's just awkward. it's not even the topic.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Giving the opinion of someone like Hawkins, who is quite knowledgeable about such things, is just evidence to support that.

So opinion is evidence?

 

[Magic Man]

but he doesn't argue for it. he says we should get off earth, here are some reasons.

And therefore the implication is that we could get off the planet in the next 200 years.

 

[Magic Man]

So opinion is evidence?

It is evidence for the argument I said was being made, yes. It's not evidence that we will definitely get off of Earth at some point, but it is evidence that the opinion that we will probably make it off Earth in the next 100-200 years is quite reasonable.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And therefore the implication is that we could get off the planet in the next 200 years.

How do you get from "Hawkings say we should get off the planet" to "we can get off the planet in 200 years"?

 

[Magic Man]

How do you get from "Hawkings say we should get off the planet" to "we can get off the planet in 200 years"?

From the article:

In fact, human beings may have less than 200 years to figure out how to escape our planet, Hawking said in a recent interview with video site Big Think. Otherwise our species could be at risk for extinction, he said.

"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million," Hawking said. "Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."

"The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet," he told Big Think. "Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load."

 

[not nom]

I just realized I can't even get his name right, what could I possibly know?? hahaha... oh well.

anyway, a quote from hawking, 2008:

Many people have asked me why I am taking this flight. I am doing it for many reasons. First of all, I believe that life on Earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space.

oh sure. why not encourage public interest in peace? if the risk is sick humans, how would spaceships help here? what if we survive fine, get off the planet, and then some people from the mars colony blow it up?

while we're playing smart people pokemon: einstein said our problems cannot be solved with thinking that is on the level they were created on. I think that's correct, and that is why hawking fails so hard when he talks about and to humanity.

when it come to asteroids, sudden panic is hardly sensible. the risk was always there, after all. taking 500 years longer to go into space doesn't change anything.

when it comes to nuclear war or "a genetically engineered virus" (WTF? is he planning some kind of 12 monkeys thing?) however... thinking going to space will help in that case, or is even a good solid priority, is outright idiotic.

 

[not nom]

From the article:

you quote it, but did you read it?? really?

In fact, human beings may have less than 200 years to figure out how to escape our planet,

to figure out means, we haven't figured it out. it just means, if we don't, we *might* be toast. that is all he says. the rest you quoted just rephrases the urgency of it, not the possibility.

from that, to "it's possible"... that bridge is called "wishful thinking", but from there to "it's probable", that's raging delusion.

how many more posts until you guys simply accept that calling it a star trek fantasy, CERTAINLY in context of the OP, is correct? I find that morbidly fascinating. this goes on forever and goes nowhere, because she hit the nail on the head. and that hurts. I get that.

but meanwhile, we still haven't even good ideas about population and resources etc. just a faint hope that it will sort itself out, that OTHERS will sort it out, and when one explores the cause for that hope -- nothing, weak logic, ad-hominems en masse, appeal to hawking.

that's the material we're working with. and that's the people who are interested in science! they are a minority, most people on this planet are way more ignorant. so... maybe humanity will choke on its own puke in its sleep, that's what I'm thinking when I am exposed to too much of it :/

 

[Magic Man]

you quote it, but did you read it?? really?

In fact, human beings may have less than 200 years to figure out how to escape our planet,

to figure out means, we haven't figured it out.

No one here has claimed we have figured it out. That would mean it would be a certainty, rather than a possibility.

it just means, if we don't, we *might* be toast. that is all he says. the rest you quoted just rephrases the urgency of it, not the possibility.

from that, to "it's possible"... that bridge is called "wishful thinking", but from there to "it's probable", that's raging delusion.

Nope. In that little piece he obviously thinks it's possible for us to do such a thing, and to do it within the next 200 years. That's the point. With the technological advances we've made in the past couple hundred years, it seems pretty likely we'll make it. The argument here is against the dismissal of the idea that we'll achieve colonies elsewhere.

how many more posts until you guys simply accept that calling it a star trek fantasy, CERTAINLY in context of the OP, is correct? I find that morbidly fascinating. this goes on forever and goes nowhere, because she hit the nail on the head. and that hurts. I get that.

but meanwhile, we still haven't even good ideas about population and resources etc. just a faint hope that it will sort itself out, that OTHERS will sort it out, and when one explores the cause for that hope -- nothing, weak logic, ad-hominems en masse, appeal to hawking.

that's the material we're working with. and that's the people who are interested in science! they are a minority, most people on this planet are way more ignorant. so... maybe humanity will choke on its own puke in its sleep, that's what I'm thinking when I am exposed to too much of it :/[/quote]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Did he ever actually revoke any of the commandments in the OT that modern day Christians don't feel the need to follow? And if he has (which I think you can argue he has), then why wouldn't the be-fruitful-and-multiply not fall under that?

There always seems to be confusion with some when it comes to commandments for pre-Christ Jews and New Testament Christians. Actually I believe that the Bible show we are all under a new law.

Also, doesn't God give Adam and Eve responsibility over the Earth? According to the verse, we are to govern it, and I'm assuming the implied context is to govern it well. Can we be said to be governing it well when hundreds of thousands of plant and animal species are going extinct directly due to our mismanagement and gobbling of resources?

I believe that the text shows that part of being in the image of Gos is that man was given dominion.

Do you believe that there isn't some upper limit that the Earth can no longer support? Or just that it's so far off in the future we can ignore it for a while still?

I don't think we have reached that limit yet.