• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

work in progress

Well-Known Member
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.
If that commandment is still in effect, then the religion is irrational and has evil consequences for the whole world.

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.
Now, doesn't that tell you something? The only reason the Earth is able to support twice as many people as it could during the 1960's, is because more sophisticated agricultural technology made increased crop yields possible. But, it has to be noted that the Green Revolution also made it necessary to transition to mechanized, intensive agriculture. The doubling and tripling of crop yields was made possible by the mass adoption of using nitrogen-fixing fertilizers all over the world. But no consideration was given for what the environmental impacts of this process would be. And it looks like the chickens are just coming home to roost right now:

Feeding humankind now demands so much nitrogen-based fertilizer that the distribution of nitrogen on the earth has been changed in dramatic, and sometimes dangerous, ways


Massive introduction of reactive nitrogen into soils and waters has many deleterious consequences for the environment. Problems range from local health to global changes and, quite literally, extend from deep underground to high in the stratosphere. High nitrate levels can cause life-threatening methemoglobinemia ("blue baby" disease) in infants, and they have also been linked epidemiologically to some cancers. Leaching of highly soluble nitrates, which can seriously contaminate both ground and surface waters in places undergoing heavy fertilization, has been disturbing farming regions for some 30 years. A dangerous accumulation of nitrates is commonly found in water wells in the American corn belt and in groundwater in many parts of western Europe. Concentrations of nitrates that exceed widely accepted legal limits occur not only in the many smaller streams that drain farmed areas but also in such major rivers as the Mississippi and the Rhine.
Fertilizer nitrogen that escapes to ponds, lakes or ocean bays often causes eutrophication, the enrichment of waters by a previously scarce nutrient. As a result, algae and cyanobacteria can grow with little restraint; their subsequent decomposition robs other creatures of oxygen and reduces (or eliminates) fish and crustacean species. Eutrophication plagues such nitrogen-laden bodies as New York State's Long Island Sound and California's San Francisco Bay, and it has altered large parts of the Baltic Sea. Fertilizer runoff from the fields of Queensland also threatens parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef with algal overgrowth.
Whereas the problems of eutrophication arise because dissolved nitrates can travel great distances, the persistence of nitrogen-based compounds is also troublesome, because it contributes to the acidity of many arable soils. (Soils are also acidified by sulfur compounds that form during combustion and later settle out of the atmosphere.) Where people do not counteract this tendency by adding lime, excess acidification could lead to increased loss of trace nutrients and to the release of heavy metals from the ground into drinking supplies.
Excess fertilizer does not just disturb soil and water. The increasing use of nitrogen fertilizers has also sent more nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Concentrations of this gas, generated by the action of bacteria on nitrates in the soil, are still relatively low, but the compound takes part in two worrisome processes. Reactions of nitrous oxide with excited oxygen contribute to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere (where these molecules serve to screen out dangerous ultraviolet light); lower, in the troposphere, nitrous oxide promotes excessive greenhouse warming. The atmospheric lifetime of nitrous oxide is longer than a century, and every one of its molecules absorbs roughly 200 times more outgoing radiation than does a single carbon dioxide molecule.
Yet another unwelcome atmospheric change is exacerbated by the nitric oxide released from microbes that act on fertilizer nitrogen. This compound (which is produced in even greater quantities by combustion) reacts in the presence of sunlight with other pollutants to produce photochemical smog. And whereas the deposition of nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere can have beneficial fertilizing effects on some grasslands or forests, higher doses may overload sensitive ecosystems.
When people began to take advantage of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, they could not foresee any of these insults to the environment. Even now, these disturbances receive surprisingly little attention, especially in comparison to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet the massive introduction of reactive nitrogen, like the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, also amounts to an immense--and dangerous--geochemical experiment.

There are another 3 billion people living on Earth -- every one of them needs food, energy, shelter + whatever available resources are necessary to produce the luxuries they decide to add to their lives. All of this comes from a planet that cannot expand to suit the needs and desires of an expanding population -- but, is actually declining in both renewable, and non-renewable resource availability. So, we are adding more people at the very time when the planet is losing capacity to provide the same level of resources. How is it logical to even consider that this situation can go on without leading to catastrophe -- most likely, the same sort of catastrophes that have caused the fall of past civilizations, or the extinction of once flourishing, isolated animal populations.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
And therefore the implication is that we could get off the planet in the next 200 years.
Do we have the 200 years needed to make this happen? If this world is heading into another dark ages, caused by the depletion of cheap fossil fuel energy sources etc., how does a future space program get off the ground?
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
If that commandment is still in effect, then the religion is irrational and has evil consequences for the whole world.


Now, doesn't that tell you something? The only reason the Earth is able to support twice as many people as it could during the 1960's, is because more sophisticated agricultural technology made increased crop yields possible. But, it has to be noted that the Green Revolution also made it necessary to transition to mechanized, intensive agriculture. The doubling and tripling of crop yields was made possible by the mass adoption of using nitrogen-fixing fertilizers all over the world. But no consideration was given for what the environmental impacts of this process would be. And it looks like the chickens are just coming home to roost right now:

Feeding humankind now demands so much nitrogen-based fertilizer that the distribution of nitrogen on the earth has been changed in dramatic, and sometimes dangerous, ways
Massive introduction of reactive nitrogen into soils and waters has many deleterious consequences for the environment. Problems range from local health to global changes and, quite literally, extend from deep underground to high in the stratosphere. High nitrate levels can cause life-threatening methemoglobinemia ("blue baby" disease) in infants, and they have also been linked epidemiologically to some cancers. Leaching of highly soluble nitrates, which can seriously contaminate both ground and surface waters in places undergoing heavy fertilization, has been disturbing farming regions for some 30 years. A dangerous accumulation of nitrates is commonly found in water wells in the American corn belt and in groundwater in many parts of western Europe. Concentrations of nitrates that exceed widely accepted legal limits occur not only in the many smaller streams that drain farmed areas but also in such major rivers as the Mississippi and the Rhine.
Fertilizer nitrogen that escapes to ponds, lakes or ocean bays often causes eutrophication, the enrichment of waters by a previously scarce nutrient. As a result, algae and cyanobacteria can grow with little restraint; their subsequent decomposition robs other creatures of oxygen and reduces (or eliminates) fish and crustacean species. Eutrophication plagues such nitrogen-laden bodies as New York State's Long Island Sound and California's San Francisco Bay, and it has altered large parts of the Baltic Sea. Fertilizer runoff from the fields of Queensland also threatens parts of Australia's Great Barrier Reef with algal overgrowth.
Whereas the problems of eutrophication arise because dissolved nitrates can travel great distances, the persistence of nitrogen-based compounds is also troublesome, because it contributes to the acidity of many arable soils. (Soils are also acidified by sulfur compounds that form during combustion and later settle out of the atmosphere.) Where people do not counteract this tendency by adding lime, excess acidification could lead to increased loss of trace nutrients and to the release of heavy metals from the ground into drinking supplies.
Excess fertilizer does not just disturb soil and water. The increasing use of nitrogen fertilizers has also sent more nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Concentrations of this gas, generated by the action of bacteria on nitrates in the soil, are still relatively low, but the compound takes part in two worrisome processes. Reactions of nitrous oxide with excited oxygen contribute to the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere (where these molecules serve to screen out dangerous ultraviolet light); lower, in the troposphere, nitrous oxide promotes excessive greenhouse warming. The atmospheric lifetime of nitrous oxide is longer than a century, and every one of its molecules absorbs roughly 200 times more outgoing radiation than does a single carbon dioxide molecule.
Yet another unwelcome atmospheric change is exacerbated by the nitric oxide released from microbes that act on fertilizer nitrogen. This compound (which is produced in even greater quantities by combustion) reacts in the presence of sunlight with other pollutants to produce photochemical smog. And whereas the deposition of nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere can have beneficial fertilizing effects on some grasslands or forests, higher doses may overload sensitive ecosystems.
When people began to take advantage of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, they could not foresee any of these insults to the environment. Even now, these disturbances receive surprisingly little attention, especially in comparison to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet the massive introduction of reactive nitrogen, like the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, also amounts to an immense--and dangerous--geochemical experiment.
There are another 3 billion people living on Earth -- every one of them needs food, energy, shelter + whatever available resources are necessary to produce the luxuries they decide to add to their lives. All of this comes from a planet that cannot expand to suit the needs and desires of an expanding population -- but, is actually declining in both renewable, and non-renewable resource availability. So, we are adding more people at the very time when the planet is losing capacity to provide the same level of resources. How is it logical to even consider that this situation can go on without leading to catastrophe -- most likely, the same sort of catastrophes that have caused the fall of past civilizations, or the extinction of once flourishing, isolated animal populations.
Let's just say that mankind does not follow all of God's plan and I'll leave it at that. If you wish to deem God to be evil as a consequence of that then I'll leave that to you and Him.
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Let's just say that mankind does not follow all of God's plan and I'll leave it at that. If you wish to deem God to be evil as a consequence of that then I'll leave that to you and Him.

You're evading the question. Should we be fruitful and multiply when we no longer have the resources to sustain a growing population?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Do we have the 200 years needed to make this happen? If this world is heading into another dark ages, caused by the depletion of cheap fossil fuel energy sources etc., how does a future space program get off the ground?

I don't think the implication is that it would take 200 years, but that that's maybe the deadline to do it.

I don't see why we'd be heading into another Dark Ages. We got through the Great Depression just fine. We've gotten through a lot of other stuff. We have problems, but they can be overcome, especially with the rate at which our technology is coming along.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
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.
I guess a lot depends on how much and how fast population growth needs to be slowed. Because so much is dependent on individual resource use, it is difficult to determine what a world sustainable population would be! Right now, we are overshooting the Earth's natural resource capacity by somewhere between 25 and 50%. So, that means (assuming present land and resource usages) we already have too many people, and need to bring the population down. I notice that a lot of environmentalists agree with a number first advanced by E.O. Wilson (Gaia Hypothesis) a few years ago, that would put the max. permanently sustainable human population at around 2 billion. Current Population is Three Times Sustainable Level

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.
It's a simple mistake that all of the economists, politicians, and the majority of people make -- that the future is going to just be a progression of past trends. It should be obvious just from looking back at the optimistic and hopeful forecasts for the world back in 1999 - the year we hit 6 billion - just how much has changed over the past decade. Back then, oil prices kept dropping, food and natural resource prices were low also, in spite of strong economic growth during the 90's; 86 nations signed the Kyoto Protocol, and it looked like greenhouse gas increases would be solved in a similar way as the global community got together to stop the production of cloroflurocarbons...that were destroying the Earth's Ozone Layer. Everything looked rosy for the status quo of neoliberal capitalism and globalization....and without realizing it, the party came to an end! And the problem is that the diehard fundamentalists and growth-at-all-costs right wingers still don't accept that the party is over!


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?
Most of the steps that the Iranian Government adopted look like just the common sense things that slowed population growth in the West -- access to birth control and birth control information, including condom use....everything that conservatives and Catholic Church leaders are trying to turn back! The only thing that might be coercive were these "compulsory" marriage classes that prospective newlyweds were expected to attend.

As a general principle, women do not want to have as many babies as their men, or church leaders desire. So, just giving women control of the baby-making process gets most of the way to the goal of reducing overpopulation. And even a half-step in the right direction is better than going backwards, like the reactionaries are trying to do!
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Let's just say that mankind does not follow all of God's plan and I'll leave it at that. If you wish to deem God to be evil as a consequence of that then I'll leave that to you and Him.
I don't believe "He" exists! And His believers do not get messages from Him either. They just project their wishes, hopes, fears, and hatreds onto a higher power that can provide the necessary divine seal of approval for whatever they want to do.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
I don't think the implication is that it would take 200 years, but that that's maybe the deadline to do it.

I don't see why we'd be heading into another Dark Ages. We got through the Great Depression just fine. We've gotten through a lot of other stuff. We have problems, but they can be overcome, especially with the rate at which our technology is coming along.
I can....and have, provided stacks of different sources of information that indicate we are in big trouble right now, and bandaid solutions aren't going to keep the status quo going much longer. What do you have to justify your faith that this is a minor problem, similar to the Great Depression?
 

not nom

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

no, but you said that article indicates anything. and it really doesn't. it's like when the doctor says "you should stop smoking or you will die", and you come home and say "the doctor said it's probable I will stop smoking".

from an earlier post of you:

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).

I would never deny that, or more. certainly not when talking about "ever". but "building things on the moon", and having an alternative for earth, that is (pardon the pun), worlds apart!

it is much more feasible to get off oil, or to tackle overpopulation, or food or even clean water, in hundred years, than building stuff off earth in any meaningful capacity... much less biospheres of any depth to them!

you see, yeah, earth had an asteroid impact. the dinosaurs died. but life didn't die. try a medium catastrophy at a "colony"? *poof*, gone. so how is that any help?

my problem is the idea that a colony would constitute "another basket". it would take a looooong time until you could remotely compare it to earth. not because it has to be "the same" as earth, or as big or as populated -- but as self-contained, instead of just an extension cord.

so until then, we HAVE to fix our stuff, here. if we don't, our extension cord will die. so why even bring that up, when the question is, well, our stuff here? I'm not against getting off earth, I'm against setting our hopes on it, and certainly when it happens so blindly. when it's actually just an excuse for apathy, not even hope.

if we don't manage to not cut our own head off on this planet, which is so abundant in resources and life, we won't be "safe" wherever we go to. wherever we go, we take our unsolved problems with us.

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.

okay, let's assume that. he mentions no arguments. saying he's a good in theoretical astrophysics, so when he has ideas about space travel and humanities survival (== economy and biology on a scale not even whole branches of science claim to understand.. ?!), that is probably valid, isn't exactly a "point". it's embarrassing in a context where star trek geekdom was mocked. because it's exactly the same, only with hawking instead of star trek.

it doesn't exactly give me confidence in the way people assess probabilities and priorities. I have nothing against the man himself, but what I hate about hawking is how people blindly swallow stuff they don't even try to understand, and that he says dumb **** like "aliens might want to use our resources for themselves". sometimes I really want to know what he is smoking.

With the technological advances we've made in the past couple hundred years, it seems pretty likely we'll make it.

hmm. "sudden nuclear war" (LMAO, he's SO in the queen's secret world ruling elite club thingy haha) and a genetically modified virus, or hey, even "just" overpopulation, total resource drain and conventional war over the remaining scraps, not to mention water -- seem to be rather recent threats, as well.

no wait, that's what makes all this even an issue in the first place!

our problems are social and cultural, not just technological. that is, technology is what it is, it moves in one direction. but society wobbles around, and that is what creates the danger(s), in combination with technology and overpopulation that means a lot of weight we throw around.

if we used just what we have now right, most of these things that supposedly require us to leave earth would vanish. if we use future techology wrong, that is, like we use ours, then that won't help. if we even get there... no building fancy spaceships when fuel for tanks is getting short. I bet you that.

so why not focus on that which is

a.) necessary
b.) uncomfortable

???

"we hang petty thieves and appoint the great ones to high office." -- aesop, pointing out a very basic problem that really needs some addressing... because technology doesn't solve, but multiply it.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
I don't believe "He" exists! And His believers do not get messages from Him either. They just project their wishes, hopes, fears, and hatreds onto a higher power that can provide the necessary divine seal of approval for whatever they want to do.
Then God's commandment is irrelevant to you...yet it is part of the OP.

As for me and my house, we WILL be fruitful and multiply. It's a delicious fruit.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
What is it going to take you to understand it is true? More depletion of fresh water sources? Complete and total desertfication of farmland? Reaching the oil peak? Depletion of salt-water fish? What is it going to take?
Ummmm...how about another alternative? Say, mankind follows God's precepts.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
It's not clear to me that is true.

what is unclear to you?

unless you learn about it, how could it become clear to you that we can't sustain the further growing populations, or even just the current one with the level of consumption we have now, other than everything going to bits and lots of people dying? it won't become noticeable until it's too late. and even then, the people in the situation won't necessarily know all of what lead to it. they just get born into it.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
what is unclear to you?

unless you learn about it, how could it become clear to you that we can't sustain the further growing populations, or even just the current one with the level of consumption we have now, other than everything going to bits and lots of people dying? it won't become noticeable until it's too late. and even then, the people in the situation won't necessarily know all of what lead to it. they just get born into it.
Well, let's look at the obvious. There are 7 billion people alive today.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member

what? yeah really. I really want to know what precepts you mean which relate to sustainability, OR what you think would change if people followed [whatever notion of god's precepts you might personally have].

really.

if you just throw claims out there, as answer to the current and future suffering of billions no less, you gotta expect to be asked what you actually mean. if you actually meant anything, that is, and didn't just mean to say "it's the fault of the unbelievers" or something like that. one never knows.
 
Top