• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quiverfull Families

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t really see any evidence for rising sea levels. But, I think it is true that we should not pollute earth. But that is not about population growth really, it is about that people should understand how to live well, Even if the population would be much less, as some people try to make happen, pollution could be problem, if people don’t understand how to live well.

I think it is always possible to live in balance with nature, even with greater population.
I don’t believe in “manmade global warming”. However, it is possible that climate has change the whole time earth has existed. I believe it will continue to change, even if humans would not exist. People can’t stop change. But people could learn to live in a way that would be more sustainable. I have actually planned how that could easily work, without taking freedom from people, but it needs some finishing before I can reveal it in larger way.
If you don't see the problem you havent been looking. Where are you getting your information? It's hard to conceive that anyone not dwelling in a straw hut could not be aware of the mounting evidence.
What magazines and papers do you read? What news do you listen to?

We're depleting resources faster than they can be replaced: Topsoil depth, aquifer depth, forests, sealife, &c. "Living well" is good, but no-one has no ecological footprint, no matter how green his lifestyle.

What happened to the megafauna during the pleistocene, when there were only a few hundred thousand humans on the entire planet? What happened to the western European forests during the middle ages, or the eastern American in the 1800s? Why are the only cedars left in Lebanon on its flags? How can we feed 7B people without extensive land usage and resource depletion? Soylent green?

Even sparse populations, living simply, can have major impact. Biodiversity needs room and migration corridors. If a keystone species needs a territory of 100 square miles to survive, and the health of the region requires a large population of them, what's going to happen when there are no places more than ten miles apart without disruptive human incursions?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...but no-one has no ecological footprint, no matter how green his lifestyle.

But it is possible to live in balance with nature, if one wants. But I don’t think that is what people want. Rulers of this world want that people consume much, so that they can get lot of power and tax money.

What happened to the megafauna during the pleistocene, when there were only a few hundred thousand humans on the entire planet? What happened to the western European forests during the middle ages, or the eastern American in the 1800s? Why are the only cedars left in Lebanon on its flags? How can we feed 7B people without extensive land usage and resource depletion? Soylent green?

This planet is not enough even for one human, if one acts stupidly. The number of people is not a problem, the way people live can be.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But it is possible to live in balance with nature, if one wants. But I don’t think that is what people want. Rulers of this world want that people consume much, so that they can get lot of power and tax money.
Can you give me some examples of people living in balance with Nature?
This planet is not enough even for one human, if one acts stupidly. The number of people is not a problem, the way people live can be.[/QUOTE]
Our numbers are the problem. Humans have been a problem for 10,000 years; more, in some regions. We deforested, we desertified, we caused extinctions.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
I think there is enough evidence to support the idea of manmade global warming. If something isn't done about it NOW it is future generations who will suffer most if much of this planet is not fit for human habitation. The people like Trump who don't believe in it, will be dead and gone by the time it really hits home.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think there is enough evidence to support the idea of manmade global warming. If something isn't done about it NOW it is future generations who will suffer most if much of this planet is not fit for human habitation. The people like Trump who don't believe in it, will be dead and gone by the time it really hits home.
I'm less concerned with fitness for human habitation than I am with fitness for habitation in general. In fact, lack of human habitation would be the best possible outcome for the planet's biosphere.

Whether something done now will have any effect on the eventual outcome is questionable. It may just slow the inevitable. We may already have gone beyond the tipping point.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
I'm less concerned with fitness for human habitation than I am with fitness for habitation in general. In fact, lack of human habitation would be the best possible outcome for the planet's biosphere.

Whether something done now will have any effect on the eventual outcome is questionable. It may just slow the inevitable. We may already have gone beyond the tipping point.

My main concern is about the planet being suitable for future human generations to live in reasonable comfort.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The definition of a 'quiverfull family' is:- Quiverfull is a theological position held by some conservative Christian couples belonging to various Christian denominations, that sees children as a blessing from God. It thus encourages procreation, abstaining from all forms of birth control (including natural family planning) and sterilization.

As you can imagine I think it is crazy for a woman to keep producing children, it isn't good for her health, and could affect the family's bank balance badly. Besides which, how on earth can you provide the love and attention each child has the right to expect, if you have a large number of children? I haven't actually met any 'quiverfull families' and hope there are very few. I have met quite a number of Catholics who have no more than a couple of kids, and I very much doubt they are celibate.

Are there any posters who believe in the 'quiverfull' dogma?

I certainly don't.. I think quiverful couples are selfish creeps. Look at the Dugans .

Isn't that the name of the family with 20 children?

Her guts must be prolapsed.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Never heard of them.

The Duggar Family
duggarfamily.com
With 19 kids and counting, the Duggar family from Tontitown, Arkansas, has blossomed with the winning combination of homeschooling and Alpha Omega Publications. Learn three practical tips Michelle Duggar shares from her own experiences with AOP’s award-winning print and digital curriculum.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
The Duggar Family
duggarfamily.com
With 19 kids and counting, the Duggar family from Tontitown, Arkansas, has blossomed with the winning combination of homeschooling and Alpha Omega Publications. Learn three practical tips Michelle Duggar shares from her own experiences with AOP’s award-winning print and digital curriculum.

I live in the UK, which is probably why I have never heard of them.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My main concern is about the planet being suitable for future human generations to live in reasonable comfort.
And I'm sure the main concern of a Salmonella bacterium is that future Salmonellae can live in reasonable comfort.
Our numbers are harming the planet's biosphere, which is our life-support system.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
There are a number of these families, whose hobby seems to be child rearing. I think they're all living on the dole.
I think here in the UK the Government should stop giving child benefit to people if they have more than three children.
 
Top