Religions and Babies

[Meadowchik]

What is the relationship between religion and fertility rates? Hans Rosling is a Swedish statistician who, with the Gapminder Institute, has created several excellent presentations with animated statsistical charts which make the data much more comprehendable:

This presentation is 13 minutes long: Religions and Babies Video 

Full disclosure, Rosling speaks of lower fertility rates in positive terms so it might grate on you if you favor higher fertility rates. I think the raw data alone makes it worth the watch.

Some key facts from his presentation: The world reached "Peak Child" in the year 2000, meaning that it was roughly the year of the maximum number of children, which has decreased since. Despite this, global population will still increase over the next several decades to an estimated 10 billion or so. However, this is not due to more babies than before being born every year, but is a consequence of people living longer. It is a consequence of increased health and standards of living.

Religion and fertility rates: fertility rates are falling globally, even among the very religious. The most highly-correllated factor to high fertility rates is high infant mortality rates: women who are accostumed to low survival rates for their babies will tend to have more babies. One could argue that, since overall health and living conditions have vastly improved for women, infants, and children in the last century, the young have better chances of survival. Then the human need to reproduce is met at lower fertility rates, thus resulting in lower fertility rates globally.

Rosling has also made some other excellent statistical presentations. One is considerably longer and it addresses resource scarcity and population fears. It is called Don't Panic and runs about 58 minutes. Another of my favorities is a shorter 9 minutes and is about the impact of washing machines on living standards, and is surprisingly moving and personal: The Magic Washing Machine.

Hope you enjoy! Thoughts welcome.

[Stargazer]

It's a demonstrable fact that as prosperity increases so the fertility rate decreases.  And probably for the reason you give : "the human need to reproduce is met at lower fertility rates".  I think a lot of people believe that prosperity makes us realize that fewer children will cost us less, and so attribute it to greed. I disagree. We are not always entirely driven by conscious decisions, but are also influenced by unconscious factors as well. Some might say that this is genetic, that evolution has programmed us to increase progeny in bad times, so as to maximize surviving offspring. I say of course that's true, but because God programmed us that way, and for the same reason.

God's pretty smart; He knows what works.  He also very artfully makes it look like He had nothing to do with it.

Oh, and by the way, if your religion commands you to make more babies, regardless of economic conditions, then you will.  But you may still make fewer than you absolutely could have.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Stargazer

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the relationship between religion and fertility rates?

I think religion creates an external force and influence in our lives, such that our decisions are governed - to some extent - by something more authoritative and foundational than our personal, in-the-moment appetites/preferences/opinions.

I also think religion provides a framework, a hope for "more."  More than ourselves.  The idea that life has more meaning than the interim difficulties and vicissitudes we experience in it.  Having children is often a natural and foreseeable expression of that hope.

Quote

Hans Rosling is a Swedish statistician who, with the Gapminder Institute, has created several excellent presentations with animated statsistical charts which make the data much more comprehendable:

This presentation is 13 minutes long: Religions and Babies Video 

Full disclosure, Rosling speaks of lower fertility rates in positive terms so it might grate on you if you favor higher fertility rates. I think the raw data alone makes it worth the watch.

Some key facts from his presentation: The world reached "Peak Child" in the year 2000, meaning that it was roughly the year of the maximum number of children, which has decreased since. Despite this, global population will still increase over the next several decades to an estimated 10 billion or so. However, this is not due to more babies than before being born every year, but is a consequence of people living longer. It is a consequence of increased health and standards of living.

I think past generations' fertility rates were heavily influenced by, among other things:

A) infant/childhood mortality (which was considerably higher than it is now), and

B) a lack of effective birth control. 

In other words, people had more babies because more babies/children died, and because they lacked effective means of preventing pregnancies.  With decreased mortality rates and better control over the timing and frequency of pregnancies, individuals and couples have more decision-making power.

Add to these...

C) the utilitarian value of having children.  In heavily agrarian societies that necessirly used labor-intensive methods for provisioning their lives (producing food, clothing, shelter, etc.), children were an asset in terms of providing labor.  These days, children in many societies have little or no such "utility."  Technology has replaced children as the means of providing labor to get things done.

Add to that

D) the non-utilitarian reduction in the perceived value of children.  If "utility" is taken out of the equation, then children come to be perceived more as a "luxury," or even a "liability."  A hassle.  A distraction.  A drain on limited resources (time, money, effort).  Religion teaches the value of children as children, and hence generally counter-acted these sentiments.  Per my religious instruction, there is no better use of my time, money and effort than on having and raising my children.

There are also all sorts of things we can do other than, rather than, expending the considerable time, money, and effort it takes to raise a child, let alone a series of them born over a period of years.  Travel.  Watch endless streaming media.  Social media and online browsing/shopping.  Gaming.  Exercise.  Read.  Write.  Listen to music.  Write or perform music.  Eat food.  Make food.  Watch sports.  Play sports.  Have sex.  Work.  Get an education.  These are all wonderful things, in their proper spheres.  But I think we run the risk of becoming self-indulgent when we focus on these to the exclusion or neglect of "weightier matters" (like starting and having a family).

There is also a lot of messaging in society that human beings are bad.  A stain on the planet.  An enemy to "the Environment."  So children are a burden.  Children are an affirmative harm.  Heck, for some, babies in utero aren't even human.  They are just a clump of cells that can be disposed of for any reason, or no reason at all.

In other words, generations past valued children more than we do now.

Quote

Religion and fertility rates: fertility rates are falling globally, even among the very religious. The most highly-correllated factor to high fertility rates is high infant mortality rates: women who are accostumed to low survival rates for their babies will tend to have more babies. One could argue that, since overall health and living conditions have vastly improved for women, infants, and children in the last century, the young have better chances of survival. Then the human need to reproduce is met at lower fertility rates, thus resulting in lower fertility rates globally.

Ah.  I didn't read this until I had written the above thoughts.  Sounds like my surmises (items A, B and C above) may be accurate on that point.

Quote

Rosling has also made some other excellent statistical presentations. One is considerably longer and it addresses resource scarcity and population fears. It is called Don't Panic and runs about 58 minutes. Another of my favorities is a shorter 9 minutes and is about the impact of washing machines on living standards, and is surprisingly moving and personal: The Magic Washing Machine.

This comports with item C above. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2019 by smac97

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the relationship between religion and fertility rates?

Depends on the religion.  In our religion we value having children as a means to increase our glory/intelligence, so the more children we have the more glory/intelligence we have by having those children.  Children themselves are reproductions of their parents and are trained/taught by their parents to think and act like they believe they should think and act.  So as reproductions of their parents children add to the intelligence of their parents by reproducing the intelligence those parents have and gave and still give to them.  And the additions multiply as the number of children who also become parents increase.

At some point parents who have and continue to have children, both by themselves as married couples and as their children also become parents who have children, there is so much more intelligence in each family line than there would otherwise have been if the individuals who had children had never had any or had only a few who at some point stop reproducing, and for people whose way of life (religion) is all about becoming as intelligent and loving as possible, those who have more children have more intelligence and love in their family line than those who don't have as many children.

We sometimes don't see that in this world though because we die and our children die and we're not able to see all of us together, but in the next phase of life, according to our religion, we will all be together with our own families and marvel at how much love and intelligence we have among us.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

...There is also a lot of messaging in society that human beings are bad.  A stain on the planet.  An enemy to "the Environment."  So children are a burden.  Children are an affirmative harm.  Heck, for some, babies in utero aren't even human.  They are just a clump of cells that can be disposed of for any reason, or no reason at all.

In other words, generations past valued children more than we do now....

I agree with a lot of your post, but take exception to this. Very, very few people think "human beings are bad." What is far, far more common is to think we live in a world with a delicate ecosystem, and if we want to ensure the well-being of human society for the long term--i.e. hundreds, and thousands, and millions of years--we need to live in balance with the ecosystem.  Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others and absolutely, positively, without exception cannot and will not grow exponentially forever. The question then becomes are we going to control population growth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions, or are we going to allow Mother Nature to control population growth using her tools of starvation, war, and disease? 

In other words, the desire for the human population to live in balance with the ecosystem isn't an anti-human-being proposition. It is a pro-human-being proposition.

 

 

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the relationship between religion and fertility rates? Hans Rosling is a Swedish statistician who, with the Gapminder Institute, has created several excellent presentations with animated statsistical charts which make the data much more comprehendable...

I am a huge fan of the late Hans Rosling--thanks for sharing these videos here. We lost one of our finest teachers when he passed away in 2017.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Analytics

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I am a huge fan of the late Hans Rosling--thanks for sharing these videos here. We lost one of our finest teachers when he passed away in 2017.

Yes, me too. I neglected to use the past-tense in the description but I was aware and grieved when he passed.  It looks like his son has been continuing his work.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others and absolutely, positively, without exception cannot and will not grow exponentially forever.

Actually, in the perspective of our religion, we will.  

You must be speaking from the perspective of some other religion, or maybe no religion at all.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Ahab

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Depends on the religion.  In our religion we value having children as a means to increase our glory/intelligence, so the more children we have the more glory/intelligence we have by having those children.  Children themselves are reproductions of their parents and are trained/taught by their parents to think and act like they believe they should think and act.  So as reproductions of their parents children add to the intelligence of their parents by reproducing the intelligence those parents have and gave and still give to them.  And the additions multiply as the number of children who also become parents increase.

At some point parents who have and continue to have children, both by themselves as married couples and as their children also become parents who have children, there is so much more intelligence in each family line than there would otherwise have been if the individuals who had children had never had any or had only a few who at some point stop reproducing, and for people whose way of life (religion) is all about becoming as intelligent and loving as possible, those who have more children have more intelligence and love in their family line than those who don't have as many children.

We sometimes don't see that in this world though because we die and our children die and we're not able to see all of us together, but in the next phase of life, according to our religion, we will all be together with our own families and marvel at how much love and intelligence we have among us.

It is true that by force of sheer numbers, having more children adds "more intelligences" to the planet, and more people who feel feelings which can include love. That said, I would hesitate to say that more children necessarily means more love, or that even parents who have children in an effort to obey divine command are doing a binary good. I do think that having many children for externalised reasons (like religion) can have unintended consequences of suffering and sorrow. Regardless of our reasons fort having children or the faith we may exercise in doing so, human beings are still subject to biological need, parents and children alike. So if those needs are neglected so that the parents can continue to reproduce, that deprivation can lead to ripple effects for individuals and the entire family. Communities can be negatively impacted. 

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Actually, in the perspective of our religion, we will.  

You must be speaking from the perspective of some other religion, or maybe no religion at all.

I think the implied perspective is the scientific one, barring whatever one might believe about the afterlife and what happens after death.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is true that by force of sheer numbers, having more children adds "more intelligences" to the planet, and more people who feel feelings which can include love. That said, I would hesitate to say that more children necessarily means more love, or that even parents who have children in an effort to obey divine command are doing a binary good. I do think that having many children for externalised reasons (like religion) can have unintended consequences of suffering and sorrow. Regardless of our reasons fort having children or the faith we may exercise in doing so, human beings are still subject to biological need, parents and children alike. So if those needs are neglected so that the parents can continue to reproduce, that deprivation can lead to ripple effects for individuals and the entire family. Communities can be negatively impacted. 

Chiidren... people, us... are the most valuable resource we have and any sacrifice necessary to maintain "us" is worth it.  

At least in this world we die so that we don't have any problem producing enough food or materials for clothing or anything else we need for our mortal survival.  Sharing is something some of us have a problem with, collectively, but we have and can produce all that we need for our survival and progress in this world.

In the next phase we won't die but we won't need to eat food to keep us alive... because nothing will be able to kill us.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the implied perspective is the scientific one, barring whatever one might believe about the afterlife and what happens after death.

Science only knows what can be seen and shown through physical evidence, and since there is no evidence to backup that perspective that is not a scientific perspective.  Wait until you have the proof before you try to make that a scientific statement.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Science only knows what can be seen and shown through physical evidence, and since there is no evidence to backup that perspective that is not a scientific perspective.  Wait until you have the proof before you try to make that a scientific statement.

That humans will not grow exponentially forever is a reasonable and scientific claim. Accessible resources being finite in amount and longevity puts a limit to growth levels and growth duration.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Chiidren... people, us... are the most valuable resource we have and any sacrifice necessary to maintain "us" is worth it.  

At least in this world we die so that we don't have any problem producing enough food or materials for clothing or anything else we need for our mortal survival.  Sharing is something some of us have a problem with, collectively, but we have and can produce all that we need for our survival and progress in this world.

In the next phase we won't die but we won't need to eat food to keep us alive... because nothing will be able to kill us.

There's more to living and learning than being born, eating, and "mortal survival." Quality of life matters for spiritual growth. 

[Metis_LDS]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That humans will not grow exponentially forever is a reasonable and scientific claim. Accessible resources being finite in amount and longevity puts a limit to growth levels and growth duration.

There is a number that is finite and that is the number of those destined to be born on the planet. Once that is reached (I assume that will be in the 1000 years of peace) then that is all,  no more births will occur.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That humans will not grow exponentially forever is a reasonable and scientific claim. Accessible resources being finite in amount and longevity puts a limit to growth levels and growth duration.

Space travel and the colonization of other planets in an immense universe.  Consider that as a possibly if you want to talk about  the many possibilities of what "will" happen.  Until it happens it's just speculation unless you actually have something more to go on.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I agree with a lot of your post, but take exception to this. Very, very few people think "human beings are bad."

This may well be more a matter of perception than reality, hence my statement that "{t}here is also a lot of messaging in society that human beings are bad."

Regardless of how many people ultimately agree with this sentiment, it's out there.  A lot.  There are a lot of look-at-what-you-have-done-to-the-planet! accusations and rhetoric and media coverage.  So even if a person or couple doesn't necessarily adopt the sentiment wholesale, they may nevertheless feel guilty or shamed about having a large family.

I have six children.  I have had a number of encounters with people who, with varying degrees of civility, have questioned my choice to have a large family.  Such skepticism/irritation cannot be because my children are insufficiently clothed/fed/provided for/cared for (they are).  I don't think such reactions can be attributed to me being a burden on society (I am gainfully employed, I pay taxes, I do not receive any government assistance, etc.).

Quote

What is far, far more common is to think we live in a world with a delicate ecosystem, and if we want to ensure the well-being of human society for the long term--i.e. hundreds, and thousands, and millions of years--we need to live in balance with the ecosystem. 

I have previously outlined my sentiments on what I have described as "a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled 'environmentalists.'  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath."  

It's hard to gauge the effects of such things, that's for sure. 

Quote

Stated differently, human beings are animals just like all others

Demonstrably untrue.  Flatly incorrect.  Wildly false.

We have the ability to reason.  From this comes education, government, technology, and countless other things that we have and do that animals do not.

Quote

and absolutely, positively, without exception cannot and will not grow exponentially forever.

Well, yes.  

Quote

The question then becomes are we going to control population growth by our own thoughtful, informed decisions,

Translation: Are we going to empower secular governments to coercively and punitively, and ultimately with violence, restrict our individual liberties regarding procreation?

I hope you aren't a fan of regimes that have tried this.  Forced abortions.  Forces sterilizations.  Eugenics.  Things can get ugly pretty fast.

Moreover, wasn't the OP all about how "population growth" is already slowing down due to, inter alia, improved healthcare, advancements in technology, reduced mortality rates, etc.?  If so, when are you speaking prospectively ("are we going to control population growth...")?

Quote

or are we going to allow Mother Nature to control population growth using her tools of starvation, war, and disease? 

Thomas Malthus and Paul R. Ehrlich called.  They want to be sure you are giving them proper credit.

Quote

In other words, the desire for the human population to live in balance with the ecosystem isn't an anti-human-being proposition. It is a pro-human-being proposition.

For some, yes.  For others, not so much (emphases added):

Quote

{T}he "trite, virtue-signalling, misanthropic silliness that passes for environmentalism'" which I had in mind is stuff like this:

  Quote

"All I wanna do is have some fun," sang Sheryl Crow once, but it appears her desires have since changed. Now all she wants to do is limit the use of toilet paper to one sheet per visit.

...

According to Crow's new strictures, the average person should use "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required". Further details were not offered as to the precise nature of these "pesky occasions", though "we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work", she insists.

Or this:

  Quote

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

Or this:

Or this example of environmentalist hypocrisy:

  Quote

Leo DiCaprio picked up an environmental award in NYC this week — but hypocritically expanded his carbon footprint by 8,000 miles when he obtained the honor, by taking a private jet from Cannes, then flying straight back to France on another jet for a model-packed fund-raiser a night later.

Or these:

• Guests Will Fly Halfway Around the World for Leonardo DiCaprio’s Climate Change Speech.
• Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work: Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane.
• Obama Flies Personal Trainer from Chicago to White House Every Week.
• And oh so many more.

There is, I think, a deeply-entrenched stain of profound misanthropy in the minds of many self-styled "environmentalists."  Hatred of humans.  Hatred of unborn humans.  Self-loathing.  Encouraging others to self-loath.  See, e.g., the following:

Environmentalism's Deep Misanthropy

  Quote

In recent years, deep misanthropy has seeped into the popular culture. For example, the 2008 remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still starred Keanu Reeves as Klaatu, an alien come to earth to commit total genocide to “save the earth.” At the end, he shows “mercy” by stripping us of our technology”an event which, were it actually to occur, would result in billions of human deaths. Illustrating how times have changed, the 1951 original version had Klaatu on earth to save humans, not wipe us out. 

This deep misanthropy has found its way into curricula. A few years ago, for example, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website carried a children’s feature called Planet Slayer , featuring “Dr. Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator,” with which kids added up their carbon score. The game ended with a “carbon hog” bloodily exploding. Data then told children how much longer they could live until they used up their respective “share of the planet””strongly implying a duty to die thereafter in order not to be a plague on the earth. 

Deep misanthropy has helped renew the Malthusian drive to radically depopulate the planet of people as a remedy for environmental ills and human deprivation. Population Matters, for example, would have us voluntarily reduce our current population of seven billion by about half to save the planet. Another Population Matters patron, Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb , says the optimal human count would be much lower, around 1.5 billion. 

Like The Day the Earth Stood Still , such advocacy has distinct genocidal overtones. But the Malthusians always assure us that they only support “non-coercive” measures, such as legally mandated access to “reproductive health””which means, in part, contraception and universal abortion-on-demand. 

Environmentalists against humans: Green is the Color of Misanthropy

  Quote

I have long noted a virulent strain of rabid misanthropy among the intelligentsia of the environmental movement.  From professors longing for the next deadly infectious disease strain to come along to philosophers who peg the ideal human population at 100 million, only 1.4 percent of the present population of 7.1 billion, hatred of humanity is not uncommon.

In a short but insightful article in 1990 Robert James Bidinotto quoted a number of environmental though leaders – and those down in the trenches – who displayed outright contempt for human aspirations, achievements and life.

  Quote

““Is it not perverse to prefer the lives of mice and guinea pigs to the lives of men and women?” asks philosopher Patrick Corbett. Not really, because “if we stand back from the scientific and technological rat race for a moment, we realize that, since animals are in many respects superior to ourselves, the argument collapses.”

“Man,” snarls Michael W. Fox in his book, Returning to Eden, “is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on earth.” David Graber, a biologist for the National Park Service, expressed his own hopes thusly:

  Quote

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line—at about a million years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . . Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

 

 

Radical Environmentalism Hides Hatred for Humanity

  Quote

The movement of late that concerns me the most is radical environmentalism.  It is not the zealous concern for the environment that disturbs me; it is the humans vs. the planet mentality that is sometimes hidden behind that concern for the environment. 

Many environmental types truly believe that the planet would be a better place without humans and they want us gone.  Some range from just asking that we voluntarily do not have children, some want to implement a one-child policy like China, and some hope for an outbreak of a virus like Ebola to get rid of what they see as a plague on the Earth.

James Lee, killed holding the Discovery Channel hostage, was a true believer in the misanthropic radical environmentalist agenda.   His demands of the Discovery channel reveal a hatred for his fellow man, namely children, disguised by a concern for the environment.   From MSNBC.com:

  Quote

{Lee} is reputed to be behind the website, SaveThePlanetProtest.com, essentially a one-page screed against Discovery, urging the company to expose civilization "for the filth it is" and to puts its focus on "how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution...."

The SaveThePlanetProtest website list of "demands" is prefaced by this statement: "The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY."

Among the chilling demands: "All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.

"In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it."

I think "parasitic human infants" says it all.

Anti-Humanism Subverts Environmental Movement

  Quote

Environmentalism has done so much good — conservation, our national parks, cleaning up the air and rivers, remediating toxic waste dumps, and the list goes on. But something has gone terribly awry.

Beginning with “deep ecology” in the 1970s — which proclaims a moral equality between people and nature and advocates radical human depopulation — a nihilistic misanthropy has slowly but surely shrouded environmentalism. It has gotten so bad that conservation and preventing pollution, once the hallmarks of environmentalism, now often take a back seat to thwarting the development of resources in the service of an ideology that is becoming explicitly anti-human.

{}There are some facets of what passes for "environmentalism" that are downright toxic.

Wow.  I sure feel better about humanity after reading this stuff.  Don't you?

🤨

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Space travel and the colonization of other planets in an immense universe.  Consider that as a possibly if you want to talk about  the many possibilities of what "will" happen.  Until it happens it's just speculation unless you actually have something more to go on.

Immense does not mean infinite nor accessible.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

Sheesh could you please tame that quote length?

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

There is a number that is finite and that is the number of those destined to be born on the planet. Once that is reached (I assume that will be in the 1000 years of peace) then that is all,  no more births will occur.

Well that's another angle, thanks!

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Immense does not mean infinite nor accessible.

Right, which is why I chose to use that word.  It is larger than you can comprehend, though.  So if you believe all people are destined to die and then that is it, no other life after this one, there are plenty of planets out there for us to inhabit if we can somehow someday figure out how to get to even just some of them.

I have a lot of faith in our species, as a whole, despite the miscreants and reprobates among us.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Right, which is why I chose to use that word.  It is larger than you can comprehend, though.  So if you believe all people are destined to die and then that is it, no other life after this one, there are plenty of planets out there for us to inhabit if we can somehow someday figure out how to get to even just some of them.

I have a lot of faith in our species, as a whole, despite the miscreants and reprobates among us.

Yet that's still not enough for exponential growth forever.

[Meadowchik]

So has anyone commenting, besides Analytics, watched the first video in the OP?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Actually, in the perspective of our religion, we will.  

You must be speaking from the perspective of some other religion, or maybe no religion at all.

I was speaking from the perspective of scientific reality.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet that's still not enough for exponential growth forever.

Where we differ is in my (relgious) perspective/belief/assurance/faith, the universe goes on forever and ever, with no boundaries out there in space somewhere.  So with that idea in my mind I can say that yes we will continue to go on forever and reproduce forever and ever.

Not all of us, individually, but collectively our species will continue to live and reproduce forever.

I thought maybe it would be enough to say the universe is so immense that we can't conceive of populating every planet we would need to inhabit to go on forever if we are only mortal and do not live forever, with me trying to accommodate your perspective, but it's probably better for me to just tell you what i see from my perspective without any concern for whether you agree with me or not.