Posted on 02/07/2003 1:37:10 PM PST by Caleb1411
You think this is a good thing? LOL.
Needing a computer is, like agriculture, another insult to human happiness forced upon us by overpopulation.
If not for overpopulation, why should anyone bother about increasing food production beyond what is needed?
You make the same mistake European explorers did when they judged certain peoples as imprudent for not stowing food for a rainy day.
Those Europeans had no understanding that before overpopulation, there was no need to store for a rainy day, because those people they encounterd had never known a time when nature failed to provide them.
All of their surrounding world was their natural larder.
Why bother about storing stuff which can spoil and sicken you--or which you must worry over to prevent raiding by animals and insects?
So long have you worn the albatross of civilization and overpopulation around your neck, that you make the unconcious assumption that things made a necessity by overpoplation, were things that always were.
But in order to have a healthy, growing population, the average woman must have 2-3 kids...not 1-2. The individualistic view of childbearing just doesn't cut it...it doesn't give any motivation to women to have enough kids.
Only religious conviction, compounded by a cultural expectation of having large families to continue the existence of a cultural/tribal group, can provide adequate incentive to women to have more babies.
To the extent that govt policy can influence this (which is debatable), I would suggest that we pass a law that any married couple who has more than 4 biological children is permanently exempted from paying income tax. This would provide an incentive to those who have significant incomes to have kids, without also stimulating increased fertility amongst those who can't afford to raise kids to begin with.
As we ought? Why is that?
albatross of civilization?
Needing a computer is, like agriculture, another insult to human happiness forced upon us by overpopulation
No. Not anything.
Look around: All life seems designed to pursue its means of sustenance. No animals are too lazy to feed themselves.
Neither is man lazy to provide for himself; man only seeks to avoid behavior that is contrary to his nature.
When people are accused of being lazy for evading work or school--is it becaues they are lying down sleeping, or are they found expending great amounts of energy doing things they enjoy?
People are by nature designed to love living a certain kind of life--a kind of life which we can no longer live because of overpopulation.
Now many sit at desks all day doing drudgery, only to be told that after work they must jog in circles (to simulate a days work hunting and gathering) lest they die of heart disease.
We now must do the work of civilized man to earn food and still do the work of hunter-gatherers to earn our health.
Modern man must work two shifts, and in ways most uncomfortable--jogging in circles is not the same as the endorphin eased exhilaration of real hunting.
You still don't get it.
I am not for dispensing with technology--I am against encouraging population growth, which increases the need for more technology.
Perhaps after another twenty or thirty-thousand years, our natures (and bodies) will--through generations lived in pain and struggle--finally adapt to the current level of civilization.
Or perhaps technology will speed up evolution, by first drugging us (already happening) and by later changing our genes (the first steps are being taken), to better suit us to living with technology.
So?
After a while, people inclined to abort their children will have selected their genes out in the course of evolution--such people, by aborting their pregnancies, will make their kind extinct.
Left alone to run its course, and your problem will solve itself.
Generous is not unlimited. The flood we are now experiencing is raising not just resentment in the legal residents and citizens, but alarm. The critical mass was reached and surpassed long ago.
Why do you type in English? It isn't forced upon you.
In the beginning, America obtained vast territories.
To prevent those territories from being settled, then claimed by foreign powers, America needed to seed those terriories with settlers as quickly as possible--so America imported people, rather than wait generations for our population to increase and migrate.
And somewhere in all this, big landowners profited (as they do today).
After the abolition of slavery (which also drove the price of paid labor down among poor whites), the industrial revolution in America needed cheap paid labor, so they flooded the country with immigrants to increase the supply of paid labor, thereby driving-down wages.
Immigration has always served certain interests, while hurting other interests.
Today, immigration is used to keep the cost of labor down while also dividing and conquering the American population through diversity ("they" don't want one, large, dominant culture with a belief system that gets in "their" way).
All this serves the powerful.
and there's plenty of country left.
Were there plenty of country left, why is the price of real estate rising?
If there is plenty of country left, why do we need pollution conttrol, recycling, and water-saving toilets and showers?
And as the number of voters approaches infinity, the power of your vote approaches zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.