But given that the number of new humans requiring welcome is under our control due to the discovery of good and quite cheap means of contraception, perhaps we ought to think how many more people we can practically manage to welcome in the style any human being deserves, and make our plans accordingly?
Given that overpopulation is yet another egregious leftist fairy story whose sole purpose is to ensure that those of present generations who have their (incredibly abundant) piece of the pie shall not have to share any of it with others (and so sexuality can continue to be entirely decoupled from the responsibilities of family and child birth), the point is rather moot.
We need have little worry over other egregious nostrums such as "sustainability" either.
Good gracious, did I say we were overpopulated NOW?
But I suppose that you would probably agree with me that the planet might get just a tad over-stretched at some point in between now and when there are 1,000 people here for every one here at present?
I'd be delighted to hear your idea of the number you think we'd be comfortable with. And then your thoughts on what might be done to ensure that the number doesn't go beyond that.
Or do you think God will deal with any problems of that kind?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
And then your thoughts on what might be done to ensure that the number doesn't go beyond that.
Global Thermonuclear Polygamy.
Now THAT'S big love...
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Many of the posts here, and discussions that would come out of this evolution and homosexuality debate, are inevitably posed on the premise that the world was set up a certain way in the beginning--intelligently designed or Aristotelian. That would be given in the minds of Mormons and most Christians, but it has some logical problems if we start off by assuming that.
I had a discussion on the ethical and social ramifications on the Quiverfull Movement's view on reproduction the other day. (It says essentially that children are a blessing from God, and only He makes the decision on when to open and close a woman's womb. God's sanctioning and commands of marriage and command to "be fruitful and multiply" dictates that married man and wife not refrain from sexual intercourse and let the children come when they may). The Quiverfull view, like Christianity in general, is universal and not pluralistic--meaning that there is one God, and we all should obey Him. With the advancements in health care and lifespan in the west (and everywhere) coupled with this view logically concludes dangerous overpopulation. Take the Jim Bob Duggar family, they have 18 kids now and I can't imagine how they'd feed their family without their TV show and donations. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone practiced this kind of lifestyle? Maybe it'd be somewhat like Utah (but worse): spending more on education than any state but less per child than any state, explosive building and water-rights quarrels, etc?
I'm not necessarily a proponent that homosexuality is genetic (or "born that way"; how'd we be able to tell anyway), but I can see some value in the occasional homosexual lifestyle.
Droopy wrote: Given that overpopulation is yet another egregious leftist fairy story whose sole purpose is to ensure that those of present generations who have their (incredibly abundant) piece of the pie shall not have to share any of it with others (and so sexuality can continue to be entirely decoupled from the responsibilities of family and child birth), the point is rather moot.
We need have little worry over other egregious nostrums such as "sustainability" either.
Good gracious, did I say we were overpopulated NOW?
But I suppose that you would probably agree with me that the planet might get just a tad over-stretched at some point in between now and when there are 1,000 people here for every one here at present?
I'd be delighted to hear your idea of the number you think we'd be comfortable with. And then your thoughts on what might be done to ensure that the number doesn't go beyond that.
Or do you think God will deal with any problems of that kind?
Droopy wrote: Global Thermonuclear Polygamy.
Now THAT'S big love...
The Restored Priesthood speaks to us, showing yet again that the glory of God is intelligence.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Danna wrote:I think humans are out of balance in the other direction! We have infested the world to the point that a reasonable standard of living for all is unsustainable.
As a gesture of seriousness about this issue, perhaps certain people here should remove themselves from the planet?
War has a tendency to do that, as does pestilence and disease.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.