Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pregnant

GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant,:

Well thank you for that clarification...you had me worried sick during the 15-second lapse from when I saw your topic to when I read this disclaimer.

however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. :

Well, I guess if you already have 17 kids, then an 18th wouldn't present too much of a change in lifestyle. Congratulations!

Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. :

Understandable.

But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest. Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.:

That's the spirit.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Dennybug
Posts: 711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:15:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.

You guys, need a TV show.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:18:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:

my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.

*faints*
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:21:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:15:43 PM, Dennybug wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.

You guys, need a TV show.

+1

I'd totally watch that. It would be like the Brady Bunch, but set in Texas.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant,:

Well thank you for that clarification...you had me worried sick during the 15-second lapse from when I saw your topic to when I read this disclaimer.
Hahahahahahahahahaha

however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. :

Well, I guess if you already have 17 kids, then an 18th wouldn't present too much of a change in lifestyle. Congratulations!
Oh but in some aspects it would though. An thank you!

Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. :

Understandable.

But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest. Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.:

That's the spirit.

(: yeshh!
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:15:43 PM, Dennybug wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.

You guys, need a TV show.

We actually tried Once, but then decided NEVERMIND! Lol
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:25:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:18:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:

my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.

*faints*

Hahahahaha dude I laughed so hard when I saw your post!!
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:25:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!


It depends on the type of birth control, but sure, a lot of them aren't 100% effective. Then again, what in the world would I know about birth control?

*Walks away inconspicuously*

Oh, and I really don't understand the Christian stance on birth control, to be perfectly honest with you, but that's a discussion for another day, haha.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:33:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

Idk if I should be offended at this remark or not because your not just talking about my faith here but my family as well :/
I appreciate your honesty though.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:33:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:25:53 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:

however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!


It depends on the type of birth control, but sure, a lot of them aren't 100% effective. Then again, what in the world would I know about birth control?

*Walks away inconspicuously*

Oh, and I really don't understand the Christian stance on birth control, to be perfectly honest with you, but that's a discussion for another day, haha.

Completely understandable regardless.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:34:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:33:09 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

Idk if I should be offended at this remark or not because your not just talking about my faith here but my family as well :/
I appreciate your honesty though.

It wasn't meant at a personal attack, it was just me speaking as a debater/nihilist. If I wanted to offend you I would have included derogatory comments.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:35:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:34:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:33:09 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

Idk if I should be offended at this remark or not because your not just talking about my faith here but my family as well :/
I appreciate your honesty though.

It wasn't meant at a personal attack, it was just me speaking as a debater/nihilist. If I wanted to offend you I would have included derogatory comments.

Alright, that's fair. :)
As I said already, thanks for your honesty and input
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...

I don't disagree with you on the current figures. It is indeed unsustainable at this moment. But from what I've seen, which is contrary to Malthus's view (and I think his is similar to yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), is that developing countries tend to have higher birth rates, and developed countries lower birth rates, be it because of complacency, less need for labor, etc.

I came across some interesting data on this when I was writing a paper a while back: http://www.unfpa.org...

So my view is that we should actually increase investment in developing countries to stabilize them, and birth rates should decline over time. That could reveal my heavy Keynesian bias, but it seems sound at least from what I've seen.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:56:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:47:59 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...

I don't disagree with you on the current figures. It is indeed unsustainable at this moment. But from what I've seen, which is contrary to Malthus's view (and I think his is similar to yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), is that developing countries tend to have higher birth rates, and developed countries lower birth rates, be it because of complacency, less need for labor, etc.

I came across some interesting data on this when I was writing a paper a while back: http://www.unfpa.org...

So my view is that we should actually increase investment in developing countries to stabilize them, and birth rates should decline over time. That could reveal my heavy Keynesian bias, but it seems sound at least from what I've seen.

There are several factors, of course it is over-simplistic to state that religion (as it is clearly the case in thsi thread) is the sole motivator, it is just a major contributor of a larger cause, which is culture.

As long as we value having children, family and marriage as requisites of a successful life, then there will be a positive drive for more people. There are mutliple causes for the 'baby boom' of the last two centuries, which was from industrialisation, modern medicine, hygiene, modern agriculture etc which all either improved human life expectancy, reduced infant mortality (which caused a 'spillover' from the large-family-large deathrate days) and from increased economy.

People have more 'stuff' per person than they did 200 years ago because technology has advanced, especially from the access of fossil fuels, ergo they can afford to sustain a larger population. I suspect that 'natural selection' pressures will play a role, if they haven't already since starvation etc begins to hit on large scales as the population saturates the availability of resources. There is a reason why bacteria haven't rebuilt the planet yet... they die from these pressures at the same rate they reproduce.

The question is, do we want to live in a society where the population is controlled by these pressures? Where everyone is struggling to earn enough resources to survive? I don't think so.

I am unfamiliar with Malthus, but I will check him out.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:57:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:47:59 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...

I don't disagree with you on the current figures. It is indeed unsustainable at this moment. But from what I've seen, which is contrary to Malthus's view (and I think his is similar to yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), is that developing countries tend to have higher birth rates, and developed countries lower birth rates, be it because of complacency, less need for labor, etc.

I came across some interesting data on this when I was writing a paper a while back: http://www.unfpa.org...

So my view is that we should actually increase investment in developing countries to stabilize them, and birth rates should decline over time. That could reveal my heavy Keynesian bias, but it seems sound at least from what I've seen.

Oh... most my points were discussed in your link... meh.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 3:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.

Has this woman by any chance heard of birth control?
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:56:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:47:59 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...

I don't disagree with you on the current figures. It is indeed unsustainable at this moment. But from what I've seen, which is contrary to Malthus's view (and I think his is similar to yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), is that developing countries tend to have higher birth rates, and developed countries lower birth rates, be it because of complacency, less need for labor, etc.

I came across some interesting data on this when I was writing a paper a while back: http://www.unfpa.org...

So my view is that we should actually increase investment in developing countries to stabilize them, and birth rates should decline over time. That could reveal my heavy Keynesian bias, but it seems sound at least from what I've seen.

There are several factors, of course it is over-simplistic to state that religion (as it is clearly the case in thsi thread) is the sole motivator, it is just a major contributor of a larger cause, which is culture.

As long as we value having children, family and marriage as requisites of a successful life, then there will be a positive drive for more people. There are mutliple causes for the 'baby boom' of the last two centuries, which was from industrialisation, modern medicine, hygiene, modern agriculture etc which all either improved human life expectancy, reduced infant mortality (which caused a 'spillover' from the large-family-large deathrate days) and from increased economy.

People have more 'stuff' per person than they did 200 years ago because technology has advanced, especially from the access of fossil fuels, ergo they can afford to sustain a larger population. I suspect that 'natural selection' pressures will play a role, if they haven't already since starvation etc begins to hit on large scales as the population saturates the availability of resources. There is a reason why bacteria haven't rebuilt the planet yet... they die from these pressures at the same rate they reproduce.

The question is, do we want to live in a society where the population is controlled by these pressures? Where everyone is struggling to earn enough resources to survive? I don't think so.

I am unfamiliar with Malthus, but I will check him out.

I think we're generally on the same page. The points you made about resource availability actually harken back to Malthusian arguments that, naturally, there will be checks on population growth which will lead to some winners and obviously some losers -- particularly less well-off people.

I haven't read too much into the baby boom, but what you said sounds entirely plausible.

The only conceivable problem I see with the natural selectionist view -- let me know if I'm misunderstanding your argument -- is that, in search of the optimal stabilizing rate of population growth, we would need to do much more than simply, say, expand birth control access. We wouldn't necessarily need to go as far as China, but I could forsee something to the effect of, as you noted earlier, reductions in social programs. I think the moral hazards from that, particularly in the interim, would far outweigh the benefits.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:10:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:03:05 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:56:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:47:59 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:41:49 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:36:44 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:29:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:23:42 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:51:00 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born.:

For goodness' sake....

http://www.plannedparenthood.org...
Disagrees with birth control! Sorry lol and besides before they became Christians when I was between 5-8 she had birth control with 5th child (my sister) and she had another birth control with the 7th child (my sister) so apparently birth control don't work anyways.... So AWAY WOTH BIRTH CONTROL!

Another serious beef I have with Christianity. Objectively this is unsustainable for society, and for the biosphere. If everyone had 18 children then the world would become overpopulated to the extent that culling would be needed since the quality of life would be so poor...

I'm largely with the anti-natalists on this issue.

I thought you were arguing against anti-natalism in your debate with Zarroette, lol.

It could be a matter of degrees, I suppose. I could probably agree with you in such a case where every single household had X amount of kids if X was unsustainable. I've been a critic of Malthus, and I doubt it could happen on a mass scale (even he himself thought it couldn't happen, oddly enough), but I suppose it becomes a balancing act at that point.

Well I am a nihilist, so I share a lot of anti-natalist values, such as the rejection of life's intrinsic value, and objective morality (seems rather subjective depending on what affects the well being of a population).

That has given me an idea though, perhaps a good social policy is to provide child welfare for the first child, but none for each successive one. Which would discourage large families, but give adequate support for those who do want families, assuming we value our continued existence on Earth.

But it's blatantly obvious either way that the Earth's current rate of population growth is completely unsustainable, you only need to see our current methods of food production, especially meat to see how bad it has gotten. There were a number of studies performed to see what the 'ideal' Earth population would be and the figures come out around 0.5-2.5 billion people.

http://www.unep.org...

I don't disagree with you on the current figures. It is indeed unsustainable at this moment. But from what I've seen, which is contrary to Malthus's view (and I think his is similar to yours, but correct me if I'm wrong), is that developing countries tend to have higher birth rates, and developed countries lower birth rates, be it because of complacency, less need for labor, etc.

I came across some interesting data on this when I was writing a paper a while back: http://www.unfpa.org...

So my view is that we should actually increase investment in developing countries to stabilize them, and birth rates should decline over time. That could reveal my heavy Keynesian bias, but it seems sound at least from what I've seen.

There are several factors, of course it is over-simplistic to state that religion (as it is clearly the case in thsi thread) is the sole motivator, it is just a major contributor of a larger cause, which is culture.

As long as we value having children, family and marriage as requisites of a successful life, then there will be a positive drive for more people. There are mutliple causes for the 'baby boom' of the last two centuries, which was from industrialisation, modern medicine, hygiene, modern agriculture etc which all either improved human life expectancy, reduced infant mortality (which caused a 'spillover' from the large-family-large deathrate days) and from increased economy.

People have more 'stuff' per person than they did 200 years ago because technology has advanced, especially from the access of fossil fuels, ergo they can afford to sustain a larger population. I suspect that 'natural selection' pressures will play a role, if they haven't already since starvation etc begins to hit on large scales as the population saturates the availability of resources. There is a reason why bacteria haven't rebuilt the planet yet... they die from these pressures at the same rate they reproduce.

The question is, do we want to live in a society where the population is controlled by these pressures? Where everyone is struggling to earn enough resources to survive? I don't think so.

I am unfamiliar with Malthus, but I will check him out.

I think we're generally on the same page. The points you made about resource availability actually harken back to Malthusian arguments that, naturally, there will be checks on population growth which will lead to some winners and obviously some losers -- particularly less well-off people.

I haven't read too much into the baby boom, but what you said sounds entirely plausible.

The only conceivable problem I see with the natural selectionist view -- let me know if I'm misunderstanding your argument -- is that, in search of the optimal stabilizing rate of population growth, we would need to do much more than simply, say, expand birth control access. We wouldn't necessarily need to go as far as China, but I could forsee something to the effect of, as you noted earlier, reductions in social programs. I think the moral hazards from that, particularly in the interim, would far outweigh the benefits.

Well, my point is:

A. If humans don't naturally stabilize their population (culturally) then either:
1. Natural Selection effects will eventually kick in (starvation, overpopulation, famines, drought, etc) and the population would reach natural equilibrium
2. We employ a social program to prevent 1 from occuring

It is true that the social programs put forward haven't been the most effective, but it's a case of 'something has to work... otherwise 1'. We simply cannot just become a virus and keep expanding ad infinitum, something will give.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:45:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Guys if you want to discuss that could ya maybe do so in a PM or elsewhere please :/
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:46:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 3:57:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.


Has this woman by any chance heard of birth control?

"This woman" is my mother -_-
And she's used birth control twice before, but she still ended up pregnant. And besides she doesn't agree with birth control anymore.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:46:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:46:28 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:57:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.


Has this woman by any chance heard of birth control?

"This woman" is my mother -_-
And she's used birth control twice before, but she still ended up pregnant. And besides she doesn't agree with birth control anymore.

lol sorry
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:47:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 4:46:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 4:46:28 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
At 7/23/2014 3:57:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18.


Has this woman by any chance heard of birth control?

"This woman" is my mother -_-
And she's used birth control twice before, but she still ended up pregnant. And besides she doesn't agree with birth control anymore.

lol sorry
It's alright.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 11:13:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.

Some people say just because a woman is pregnant doesn't mean she has to continue with it. Some people say the pregnant women seeing she is the one who will carry the risk of pregnancy should get to decide whether to go through with it or have it terminated.

What do you think, do you think your mom or any other women should be forced to continue a pregnancy even if she chooses not too ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 12:53:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you even remember all of their names?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Dennybug
Posts: 711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 2:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:47:08 PM, GodChoosesLife wrote:
No, I'm not pregnant, however, most of you here know that I come from a family of 17 kids as me being the first born. I just found out about 15minutes ago that my Mom is pregnant again, but with #18. Although I'm excited to be a big sis again I'm concerned for my Mom. But nonetheless, she just loves babies and I will support that as well as be thankful to God for another addition that I will soon be able to hold and love on along with the rest.

Without my family and without God I would be nothing. They mean the world to me and I'd die to protect them no matter what.

http://gmwilliams.hubpages.com...