If sex leads to overpopulation would God have originally expected humans to only have sex occasional

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Only a handful of nations produce enough food to feed their people, and they also are the exporters of foods.

Hardly a surprise since some locations are geographically much better for farming than others.

If it was necessary I am sure most nations would be able to feed their people by setting up necessary infrastructure.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course it will provided we don’t nuke ourselves to Stone Age or get wiped out by an asteroid.

With technological process we have now how can it be justified that we have starvation in 100 years ?

Producing enough food isn't the problem. It's getting it to those who need it. Of course destroying the capacity of the earth to produce food doesn't help.

China’s Dirty Secret: The Boom Poisoned Its Soil and Crops

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Producing enough food isn't the problem. It's getting it to those who need it.

That would also be a century more of logistics technology advances. A century more to get people up to date with technology, a real world wide wireless internet, century of education, women’s rights.

I don’t mean we will have an utopia yet but certainly we can get rid of a problem of people starving to death by that time?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hardly a surprise since some locations are geographically much better for farming than others.

If it was necessary I am sure most nations would be able to feed their people by setting up necessary infrastructure.

I think some countries have way too many people and not enough arable land. It's also difficult to grow food the right way when no one wants to get their hands dirty.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That would also be a century more of logistics technology advances. A century more to get people up to date with technology, a real world wide wireless internet, century of education, women’s rights.

I don’t mean we will have an utopia yet but certainly we can get rid of a problem of people starving to death by that time?

We have to solve the problem of war first, swords into plowshares, etc.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I think some countries have way too many people and not enough arable land. It's also difficult to grow food the right way when no one wants to get their hands dirty.

Then it would be green houses of some sort. Also if the alternative is starvation people will get their hands dirty.

Probably most of the stuff can be soon automated anyway.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then it would be green houses of some sort. Also if the alternative is starvation people will get their hands dirty.

Probably most of the stuff can be soon automated anyway.

We also have to deal with the weather. That will be the biggest problem as there is little agreement on how to proceed. We can't cover every field with a greenhouse. And we can't eliminate animals from the food supply as many would like to do.

A heavy rainstorm that would wipe out a planted field would be welcomed by a well managed pasture.

 

[dcalling]

I have been reading a lot about overpopulation lately and how it has and is contributing to a lot of our problems such as climate change, poverty, pollution and the depletion of the earth's natural resources. So it got me thinking how could we have avoided this situation. The obvious answer is to not produce so many people. But despite contraception, we have still overpopulated. So the question is did God intend for us to only have sex occasionally to avoid overpopulating the earth or is this inevitable.

God has all planned out so the earth will be enough for all. The over population is only a myth, as you see countries who originally pushing it (i.e. China etc) has recently reversed the policy, as aging population destroys economic growth (i.e. Japan and part of EU).

Some scientist projected world will run out of food by now early on, but that never happened, God always reveal new ways we can supply ourselves, so the food supply didn't dry up, it increased so much that food is not the most important thing in most of the world any more.

HOWEVER, human sin is definitely an issue, as you see bad policies destroy countries (i.e. see North Korea, Venezuela). This always happen when people think they are smarter than others (and ignores God). A really good example is China, half a century ago they take the US liberal idea that over population is the root of poverty, and now they found out if you just free up the policy, the more people you have, the better, I heard they have totally abandon the one child policy, and did 180 degree turn, now rewarding for extra kid

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God has all planned out so the earth will be enough for all. The over population is only a myth, as you see countries who originally pushing it (i.e. China etc) has recently reversed the policy, as aging population destroys economic growth (i.e. Japan and part of EU).

Some scientist projected world will run out of food by now early on, but that never happened, God always reveal new ways we can supply ourselves, so the food supply didn't dry up, it increased so much that food is not the most important thing in most of the world any more.

HOWEVER, human sin is definitely an issue, as you see bad policies destroy countries (i.e. see North Korea, Venezuela). This always happen when people think they are smarter than others (and ignores God). A really good example is China, half a century ago they take the US liberal idea that over population is the root of poverty, and now they found out if you just free up the policy, the more people you have, the better, I heard they have totally abandon the one child policy, and did 180 degree turn, now rewarding for extra kid

The 'one child' policy wasn't the problem. The problem was that the people favored male children, often leading to abortion and even infanticide of female children. The policy was reversed because there were too few marriageable females. If female children had been encouraged as well the policy would have paid huge dividends. At this point the only way to reduce the oversupply of men is to send them to war.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

I have been reading a lot about overpopulation lately and how it has and is contributing to a lot of our problems such as climate change, poverty, pollution and the depletion of the earth's natural resources. So it got me thinking how could we have avoided this situation. The obvious answer is to not produce so many people. But despite contraception, we have still overpopulated. So the question is did God intend for us to only have sex occasionally to avoid overpopulating the earth or is this inevitable.

Pre-fall ecological crisis? - creation.com

 

[dcalling]

The 'one child' policy wasn't the problem. The problem was that the people favored male children, often leading to abortion and even infanticide of female children. The policy was reversed because there were too few marriageable females. If female children had been encouraged as well the policy would have paid huge dividends. At this point the only way to reduce the oversupply of men is to send them to war.

The one child policy is the problem, it is a reverse pyramid of generations, does not matter if people favor male or female. As time pass by some couple even favor no child, same as the west. However it also means less young people, or each family has to take care of 4 parents (or 2 if not married), less demand for everything. It became a very big problem and what I learned is, not only China abandoned one child policy, they started allow 2 and later on totally relaxed, then realizing how bad it has became, started to incentivize more kids, just like Russia.

Again, when people think they are smarter, and ignores God, they do very bad things. The smart they think they are, the more power they have, the worse the things became.

 

[packermann]

Of course it will provided we don’t nuke ourselves to Stone Age or get wiped out by an asteroid.

With technological process we have now how can it be justified that we have starvation in 100 years ?

It is because the ones who worry about over-population, global warming, and air population do not want the third-world countries to be like us because that will increase those alleged dangers. Those have the technology could pass it on to the third-world countries but they refuse to do that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Pre-fall ecological crisis? - creation.com

It seems that God built in 'population control cycles' in many prolific species; a 'boom and bust' cycle if you will. However it seems that when a species is transplanted into a new environment this process often breaks down and the population explodes. Likely because other factors that work to accomplish population control are no longer present.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That would also be a century more of logistics technology advances. A century more to get people up to date with technology, a real world wide wireless internet, century of education, women’s rights.

I don’t mean we will have an utopia yet but certainly we can get rid of a problem of people starving to death by that time?

Actually some good points. As living standards increase family size gets smaller. So perhaps by helping to modernize the third world we can solve the runaway population problem. I especially like the idea of encouraging women's rights. Given their choice I doubt if many would marry and become mothers while still teenagers.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

...which, however, is what the Indians and plenty of other people aspire to! We in the West are actually the model for using resources in order to live life more productively, less wastefully, more enjoyably, and more beneficially towards the rest of the world's population.

Aren't countries like Australia and America some of the most wasteful? Food waste of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Aren't countries like Australia and America some of the most wasteful? Food waste of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista

nm

 

[Albion]

Aren't countries like Australia and America some of the most wasteful? Food waste of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista

It depends on how you look at "wasteful." My point was more along the lines of "Don't lionize the third world nations for not being as wasteful as ours in the 'West.'"

That's because their governments aspire to catching up to our lifestyle, not to doing their part for conservation. They allow pollution far more (and more casually) than we do in their drive to improve the daily lives of their people. Solar panels don't appeal to them. Coal-fired furnaces do. It's our planners, opinion makers, and government agencies which are concerned to find "alternate sources" and to re-cycle, etc.

The illusion that some Westerners live under that we are the insensitive users of the natural environment while those other nations are closer to the soil and are the respecters of nature, etc. is bunk.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Aren't countries like Australia and America some of the most wasteful? Food waste of selected countries worldwide 2017 | Statista

As an Australian I was intrigued by the following quote from the above link, so I had a look at the figures. If the 361 kg is correct per person, that's an enormous amount of wastage. That's nearly 7kg a week per person, or a kilogram a day. I find that a bit hard to believe. Most households could not afford that sort of profligacy. I don't think most of us would eat that much a day, let alone throw it out.

This statistic shows the annual food waste of selected countries worldwide in 2017. In that year, Australia's food waste amounted to a national total of some 8.95 billion kilograms, which ranked them as the ninth largest food wasting country in the world. When measured on a per capita basis, however, Australia was the world's largest food wasting nation, at 361 kilograms per person in 2017.

There's only two people in our household (wife and myself) and there's no way we'd throw away 720 kg of food a year. That's 13.85 kg a week. I doubt if our entire food shopping would weigh that much, even allowing about 5kg (5 litres) of milk a week.

We throw out very little food ourselves. We recycle vegetable scraps in a compost bin (which takes forever to become soil - I probably put a full year of scraps into it before I empty it).

So I'm puzzled where this figure comes from. I know that restaurants, bakeries etc, would throw out some food if they can't sell it, but I'm still intrigued as to how this figure is derived.

What I have seen quoted is that in the West, it takes about a calorie of fossil fuel to put a calorie of food on the table.

I can believe that, if we take into account the fuel on farms, for transport, processing, storing, and retailing and then getting it home. We'd be extremely vulnerable to a fuel embargo, as we get about 90% of our fuel from the Middle East. I fully expect that to happen sooner or later, mainly because it was a speculative quote by my rather prophetic pastor ditto "Suppose you get an Arab statesman who does a bit of fence building with his mates. Then he says to the West, '"Right boys, either you get Israel out of there, or we turn off the taps (oil)!. ...' We'd all be broke in a week!"

It was conjecture but he had an uncanny way of being proven right.

On the other hand, it's estimated we feed about 60-70 million people, including our own 25 million, based on the fact we export about two thirds of our production. But most of that would go to premium markets, not the poor, who need it most.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

As an Australian I was intrigued by the following quote from the above link, so I had a look at the figures. If the 361 kg is correct per person, that's an enormous amount of wastage. That's nearly 7kg a week per person, or a kilogram a day. I find that a bit hard to believe. Most households could not afford that sort of profligacy. I don't think most of us would eat that much a day, let alone throw it out.



There's only two people in our household (wife and myself) and there's no way we'd throw away 720 kg of food a year. That's 13.85 kg a week. I doubt if our entire food shopping would weigh that much, even allowing about 5kg (5 litres) of milk a week.

We throw out very little food ourselves. We recycle vegetable scraps in a compost bin (which takes forever to become soil - I probably put a full year of scraps into it before I empty it).

So I'm puzzled where this figure comes from. I know that restaurants, bakeries etc, would throw out some food if they can't sell it, but I'm still intrigued as to how this figure is derived.

What I have seen quoted is that in the West, it takes about a calorie of fossil fuel to put a calorie of food on the table.

I can believe that, if we take into account the fuel on farms, for transport, processing, storing, and retailing and then getting it home. We'd be extremely vulnerable to a fuel embargo, as we get about 90% of our fuel from the Middle East. I fully expect that to happen sooner or later, mainly because it was a speculative quote by my rather prophetic pastor ditto "Suppose you get an Arab statesman who does a bit of fence building with his mates. Then he says to the West, '"Right boys, either you get Israel out of there, or we turn off the taps (oil)!. ...' We'd all be broke in a week!"

It was conjecture but he had an uncanny way of being proven right.

On the other hand, it's estimated we feed about 60-70 million people, including our own 25 million, based on the fact we export about two thirds of our production. But most of that would go to premium markets, not the poor, who need it most.

It might be the annual food waste of Australia as a whole divided by the number of people.

 

[Scott Husted]

I have been reading a lot about overpopulation lately and how it has and is contributing to a lot of our problems such as climate change, poverty, pollution and the depletion of the earth's natural resources. So it got me thinking how could we have avoided this situation. The obvious answer is to not produce so many people. But despite contraception, we have still overpopulated. So the question is did God intend for us to only have sex occasionally to avoid overpopulating the earth or is this inevitable.

Given the beasts that we are ... inevitable.