1 edit
So suppose there is some kind of world wide disaster, take your pick, and the human population goes down say by 99% leaving less than 100 million total for the whole planet.
What would the response be to questions of why, did your god do it, (again), and what happened to all the dead folk?
Would it be assumed they all went to hell or heaven?
It is my working theory the planet would be better for such a disaster, disaster for humans but good for the planet which could then go about the multi-thousand year healing process.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonhouse
So suppose there is some kind of world wide disaster, take your pick, and the human population goes down say by 99% leaving less than 100 million total for the whole planet.
What would the response be to questions of why, did your god do it, (again), and what happened to all the dead folk?
Would it be assumed they all went to hell or heaven?
It i ...[text shortened]... umans but good for the planet which could then go about the multi-thousand year healing process.
It is my working theory the planet would be better for such a disaster,
disaster for humans but good for the planet which could then go about the
multi-thousand year healing process.
As a humanist I have to completely reject that assertion.
The world and environment has no intrinsic value or purpose to the universe
other that those that we give it.
'saving the biosphere' by killing humans is just nonsensical, as well as immoral.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd what if humans are negatively impacting their own long term survival by destroying the biosphere? Would that be sufficient grounds for saving it?It is my working theory the planet would be better for such a disaster,
disaster for humans but good for the planet which could then go about the
multi-thousand year healing process.
As a humanist I have to completely reject that assertion.
The world and environment has no intrinsic value or purpose to the universe
other that t ...[text shortened]... we give it.
'saving the biosphere' by killing humans is just nonsensical, as well as immoral.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI never said that saving the biosphere isn't an important or worthy goal.
And what if humans are negatively impacting their own long term survival by destroying the biosphere? Would that be sufficient grounds for saving it?
My objection was the suggestion that we should be happy that 99% of us
had been wiped out to achieve it.
The value of the biosphere (which is considerable) is to US. If you kill us
to save it then what's the point?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by googlefudgewould you support a plan from world governments to restrict child birth until the world population is down to 100million?
I never said that saving the biosphere isn't an important or worthy goal.
My objection was the suggestion that we should be happy that 99% of us
had been wiped out to achieve it.
The value of the biosphere (which is considerable) is to US. If you kill us
to save it then what's the point?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo. Not even in theory even ignoring the pernicious effects similar laws have
would you support a plan from world governments to restrict child birth until the world population is down to 100million?
typically had in practice.
The world population is currently looking like stabilising at 10~12 billion by the
end of the century.
Which IS sustainable IF we rapidly move to a green economy. We can make enough
food, produce enough energy, and protect the biosphere with such a population.
It would be better to reduce the population though, to 1~2 billion say, but I would
do so via emigration into space [likely via space elevators] as opposed to birth control
measures.
We can also move large populations onto floating cities/artificial islands in the long
term which if done right can benefit the oceans ecosystems. And the planet as a whole.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by googlefudgeisnt there a danger that having such a large population would mean some of the natural resources needed for us to maintain ambitions of life in space will be used up before we can get there?......getting out of my depth here but i think silicon, gold and helium are almost used up (somebody help me out here).
No. Not even in theory even ignoring the pernicious effects similar laws have
typically had in practice.
The world population is currently looking like stabilising at 10~12 billion by the
end of the century.
Which IS sustainable IF we rapidly move to a green economy. We can make enough
food, produce enough energy, and protect the biosphere wi ...[text shortened]... he long
term which if done right can benefit the oceans ecosystems. And the planet as a whole.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt ain't happening. It's not in the plan. Not the way you're thinking, anyways. Although:
So suppose there is some kind of world wide disaster, take your pick, and the human population goes down say by 99% leaving less than 100 million total for the whole planet.
What would the response be to questions of why, did your god do it, (again), and what happened to all the dead folk?
Would it be assumed they all went to hell or heaven?
It i ...[text shortened]... umans but good for the planet which could then go about the multi-thousand year healing process.
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." -- Matthew 24:21-22
during the Tribulation, we shall see vast numbers killed by natural disasters as well as at the hands of other men. Those days shall be shortened, otherwise all men left on the planet would be killed. As it is, the great Tribulation will only last seven years. It will be a combination of God's bowls of wrath being poured out (see Revelation), as well as the forces of evil (the AntiChrist and others) having their merry way with mankind in the last days. And 'what happened to all the dead folk'? What usually happens to 'dead folk'? Pretty much the same as always.
'Multi-thousand year healing process'? No, what would be the point? It will be the end of this age. The Kingdom of God will then begin (on a restored earth), a much better age for mankind. And as a side effect, way, way fewer total souls, yes.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by stellspalfieHelium is the only one of those that I would be worried about 'using up'.
isnt there a danger that having such a large population would mean some of the natural resources needed for us to maintain ambitions of life in space will be used up before we can get there?......getting out of my depth here but i think silicon, gold and helium are almost used up (somebody help me out here).
As the rest are just changed in form and location and not destroyed.
Helium can be manufactured in power generating nuclear
reactions but albeit in small quantities, and it leaks out the atmosphere.
However there isn't any current reason to suppose that running out of
helium would prevent space travel, although it might make certain technologies
harder and more inconvenient.
Originally posted by SuzianneAs I understand it, over 85% of people on the earth at the time of the great tribulation will be killed. So it does not seem as bad as the worldwide flood, in destroying all flesh, when there was only 8 people left alive.
It ain't happening. It's not in the plan. Not the way you're thinking, anyways. Although:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." -- Mat ...[text shortened]... d earth), a much better age for mankind. And as a side effect, way, way fewer total souls, yes.
Originally posted by googlefudgeButterflies.
I never said that saving the biosphere isn't an important or worthy goal.
My objection was the suggestion that we should be happy that 99% of us
had been wiped out to achieve it.
The value of the biosphere (which is considerable) is to US. If you kill us
to save it then what's the point?
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Piggly Wiggly in Bumhump, Alabama, is paging you. Cleanup in aisle 12.
As I understand it, over 85% of people on the earth at the time of the great tribulation will be killed. So it does not seem as bad as the worldwide flood, in destroying all flesh, when there was only 8 people left alive.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf humans were gone, a few million years later maybe something higher on the developmental scale would evolve. Intelligent spiders, Bonobo's turning into better humans than humans of today, something like that.
It ain't happening. It's not in the plan. Not the way you're thinking, anyways. Although:
"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." -- Mat ...[text shortened]... d earth), a much better age for mankind. And as a side effect, way, way fewer total souls, yes.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf there were zero people alive due to some disaster, perhaps millions of years later something better would evolve. Creatures who don't automatically go to war over stupid religious views, etc.It is my working theory the planet would be better for such a disaster,
disaster for humans but good for the planet which could then go about the
multi-thousand year healing process.
As a humanist I have to completely reject that assertion.
The world and environment has no intrinsic value or purpose to the universe
other that t ...[text shortened]... we give it.
'saving the biosphere' by killing humans is just nonsensical, as well as immoral.