Sex is for Pleasure

[Lote-Tree]

I'm not a religious person but as I understand it, for many (but not all) religions the purpose of sex is to procreate, and that is not possible through homosexual acts. As such sex between homosexuals becomes blasphemous as their sexual act is purely for pleasure, not procreation. The same would be true for a hetrosexual couple who practice birth control, albeit that attitudes seem to have moved on a little more quickly in that respect (but not in all religions!).


I will argue that Primary function of Sex is for Pleasure. Procreation is now secondary. We have evolved to make it secondary - even then it is a matter of choice.

What say you?

[Bii]

Hasn't it always been the case?

[Virgil]

I will argue that Primary function of Sex is for Pleasure. Procreation is now secondary. We have evolved to make it secondary - even then it is a matter of choice.

What say you?

Well that's why you Europeans are demographically fading away. ;) You don't reproduce.

[Lote-Tree]

Hasn't it always been the case?

Has it?

In the evolutionary past it may not have been...


Well that's why you Europeans are demographically fading away. ;) You don't reproduce.

World is hugely over populated. It is about time that some of us stopped reproducing for the sake of the planet :-)

[Bii]

Has it?

In the evolutionary past it may not have been...

Why do it if it's not pleasurable? The results certainly aren't ;)

[SleepyWitch]

World is hugely over populated. It is about time that some of us stopped reproducing for the sake of the planet :-)

hahahha :) if it only were that simple :) i don't think people in the so-called developed world no longer reproducing will have much of an effect on the overall situation


I will argue that Primary function of Sex is for Pleasure. Procreation is now secondary. We have evolved to make it secondary - even then it is a matter of choice.

What say you?
yes and no.
personally i think it should be primarily for pleasure, but there are lots of people who think it's primarily for procreation. if they think that's the case and wish to live accordingly, that's fine by me. As long as they don't try to enforce this lifestyle on others, it's OK.

[Virgil]

World is hugely over populated. It is about time that some of us stopped reproducing for the sake of the planet :-)

Who says it's over populated? Plenty of space here and plenty of food here too. :)

To answer your original question, why is it either or? It's functional purpose is procreation, but with very pleasuable side effects. :p

[Lote-Tree]

Why do it if it's not pleasurable? The results certainly aren't ;)

To pass on the genes. For survival. At the level of DNA there is no such thing as pleasurable. It is only a replication process.


Who says it's over populated? Plenty of space here and plenty of food here too. :)


7 Billion thats a lot!



To answer your original question, why is it either or? It's functional purpose is procreation, but with very pleasuable side effects. :p


Functional purpose has been superseeded. It's no longer a side effects. It is the Primary purpose.

[Stanislaw]

Functional purpose has been superseeded. It's no longer a side effects. It is the Primary purpose.

I don't know, the primary of sex is for procreation...thats why the parts are made the way they are...if procreation has been superseeded, we would be able to reproduce a sexually...(I don't consider artificial insemination a sexual...you still need man bits and women bits)

[Turk]

I am not a master of English you know; but i don't think pleasure is something we can describe with the word function.

[Moira]

I will argue that Primary function of Sex is for Pleasure. Procreation is now secondary. We have evolved to make it secondary - even then it is a matter of choice.

What say you?

I will have to agree with you on this one. Procreation doesn't need much repetition.... in most cases, so there must be another reason that takes over and pleasure might just be it.:D

[Lote-Tree]

I am not a master of English you know; but i don't think pleasure is something we can describe with the word function.

Some Function are pleasurable.


I will have to agree with you on this one.


Then it must be DEFINATELY wrong ;-)

[kiz_paws]

To answer your original question, why is it either or? It's functional purpose is procreation, but with very pleasuable side effects. :p
I think that I agree with this merry little thought. Thanks, Virgil! :)

[motherhubbard]

I think that sex was meant to bring a married couple closer together 1 co 7:12 (I believe) withholding not yourselves from one another except it be for a time of prayer (Paraphrased). I think it was absolutely meant to be a pleasurable experience with procreation as a side effect. I think God planned it that way. I don’t understand why people think that God doesn’t want people to have sex or why it is solely for the purpose of procreation. Do they also believe that once you’ve reached menopause or had a hysterectomy you should no longer have sex? That’s crazy! To me the fact that a woman has a clitoris is evidence that God meant for sex to be pleasurable, it serves no other function. There’s not another body part that serves NO other function by to give pleasure. God is not a cruel task master.

But that’s just my opinion and I definitely have motivation to think that way.

[SleepyWitch]

I think that sex was meant to bring a married couple closer together 1 co 7:12 (I believe) withholding not yourselves from one another except it be for a time of prayer (Paraphrased). I think it was absolutely meant to be a pleasurable experience with procreation as a side effect. I think God planned it that way. I don’t understand why people think that God doesn’t want people to have sex or why it is solely for the purpose of procreation. Do they also believe that once you’ve reached menopause or had a hysterectomy you should no longer have sex? That’s crazy! To me the fact that a woman has a clitoris is evidence that God meant for sex to be pleasurable, it serves no other function. There’s not another body part that serves NO other function by to give pleasure. God is not a cruel task master.

But that’s just my opinion and I definitely have motivation to think that way.

hurray :) what's your brand of Christianity called? can I join it?

[Bii]

To pass on the genes. For survival. At the level of DNA there is no such thing as pleasurable. It is only a replication process.


I was being glib, but seriously, the only real driver for sex is pleasure. Passing on of genes and procreation as a concept require rationalisation and understanding. Imagine we didn't know the outcome of sex, we would still do it because it is pleasurable, and we want to do it because it is pleasurable. I don't think the biology of this has changed over the ages, only our attitude towards it.

[Lote-Tree]

I don’t understand why people think that God doesn’t want people to have sex or why it is solely for the purpose of procreation.


Neither can I!

By doing so they make something that is natural and very conducive to the well being of the individuals involved, seem wrong.



That’s crazy! To me the fact that a woman has a clitoris is evidence that God meant for sex to be pleasurable, it serves no other function.


Exactly!!! Clitoris has more than 10 thousand different nerve endings - far more than the male glans! Clitoris is a dead give away to what is sex for or has become over the millenia of evolution...


I was being glib, but seriously, the only real driver for sex is pleasure.


Really I thought some animal species never experience this pleasure. But have a reproductive urge to procreate.

[motherhubbard]

I often wonder how the attitude changed. It was not like that from the beginning. I think somewhere around the Victorian age people got the idea that anything that brings pleasure, or could be desired was somehow evil. Satin did not event sex or desire. God gives us the desire to eat, food is good, eating is for our benefit and our pleasure. The same is true with wine, sleep, exercise, and so many other things. It is true for sex. All of these things must be practiced in moderation, but we eat three or four times a day and we sleep something like eight hours a day. If we ate 30 meals or exercised fifteen hours a day that would not be healthy. If any of these things became more important than serving God it would be a bad thing, but other than that no way. My own feelings are that inside of a marriage people should have more sex. Even if you’re not in the mood when you start you will be before it’s over! I think that it’s when people engage in sex out side of marriage that it can be physically and emotionally detrimental. I’m really not as old as I sound.

[Turk]

I don't think anyone claimed pleasure is not a part of sex. I really don't understand you buddies sometimes.

[Lote-Tree]

I don't think anyone claimed pleasure is not a part of sex. I really don't understand you buddies sometimes.

So what is that you saying EXACTLY?

Is Sex for Pleasure or Not?

Yes or No will do.

Regards,
Lote

[SleepyWitch]

I often wonder how the attitude changed. It was not like that from the beginning. I think somewhere around the Victorian age people got the idea that anything that brings pleasure, or could be desired was somehow evil. Satin did not event sex or desire. God gives us the desire to eat, food is good, eating is for our benefit and our pleasure. The same is true with wine, sleep, exercise, and so many other things. It is true for sex. All of these things must be practiced in moderation, but we eat three or four times a day and we sleep something like eight hours a day. If we ate 30 meals or exercised fifteen hours a day that would not be healthy. If any of these things became more important than serving God it would be a bad thing, but other than that no way. My own feelings are that inside of a marriage people should have more sex. Even if you’re not in the mood when you start you will be before it’s over! I think that it’s when people engage in sex out side of marriage that it can be physically and emotionally detrimental. I’m really not as old as I sound.
(erhem, Satan is spelled with an a :) )
I absolutely agree with you motherh... but then there are those who argue that the evil snake in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was Satan....
Adam only knew his wife *nudge nudge* after they ate the fruits.
so one could argue that sex is a direct result of eating the fruit. in this sense, it's a direct result of doing something God had forbidden, i.e. it is bad.
but then why did he put the fruits and the snake there, if he didn't already know Adam and Eve would be naughty?
also, God urged them to go forth and people the earth (right after he created them but before they ate the fruit???? correct me if I'm wrong

... so how could they have peopled the Earth without knowing each other?
yeah, I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm hoping to get a view on this from someone who knows more about the Bible than me


I don't think anyone claimed pleasure is not a part of sex. I really don't understand you buddies sometimes.

oh well... some Catholics or Puritans would argue that pleasre is part of sex but that the pleasure aspect of sex is a work of the devil.
i actually talked to a Catholic priest at my school once who maintained that sex was solely for procreation and the pleasure in it was invented by the devil.
---> thus even married couples should not have sex, unless they want to become pregnant. He serioulsy argued that even married couples should only have sex like once a year.

[dbowen73]

I think that its function is to reproduce like said above but would any one want to do it jsut for the sake of reproducing??? or do most people do it mainly for the pleasure?? i dont know anyone who says i just want sex to passes on my genes. i mean if it weren't for the pleasure wouldn't it just be in a way be a job of the human race to continue its self???

[Lote-Tree]

but would any one want to do it jsut for the sake of reproducing?


Millions!!!



?? or do most people do it mainly for the pleasure??


Billions!!!

[SleepyWitch]

I think that its function is to reproduce like said above but would any one want to do it jsut for the sake of reproducing??? or do most people do it mainly for the pleasure?? i dont know anyone who says i just want sex to passes on my genes. i mean if it weren't for the pleasure wouldn't it just be in a way be a job of the human race to continue its self???

yep :) and who likes doing routine jobs? no-one :)
actually, some biologists think the pleasure aspect also has a biological function: to override humans' laziness and give them an incentive to reproduce...

[Bii]

Really I thought some animal species never experience this pleasure. But have a reproductive urge to procreate.

1) how on earth would anyone know that? and
2) are we talking about humans or animals?

[Lote-Tree]

1) how on earth would anyone know that? and
2) are we talking about humans or animals?

Well, we have evolved so there must be a point where there was no pleasure in sexual reproduction.

If we trace our evolutionary history....there is a point where such did not exist...

I shall find out for some info in that regard - if I can :-)

[Virgil]

7 Billion thats a lot!


Not to me. Why is that a lot? By what standard?

[dbowen73]

yep :) and who likes doing routine jobs? no-one :)
actually, some biologists think the pleasure aspect also has a biological function: to override humans' laziness and give them an incentive to reproduce...

yeah i mean its tiring so why would people want to continue to do it if it gave them no pleasure its like working with out the pay there is no incentive to do it the human race would die out with out the pleasure of sex

[Lote-Tree]

Not to me. Why is that a lot? By what standard?

here is some - picked out randomly from the web.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

Regards,
Lote.

[motherhubbard]

(erhem, Satan is spelled with an a :) )
I absolutely agree with you motherh... but then there are those who argue that the evil snake in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was Satan....
Adam only knew his wife *nudge nudge* after they ate the fruits.
so one could argue that sex is a direct result of eating the fruit. in this sense, it's a direct result of doing something God had forbidden, i.e. it is bad.
but then why did he put the fruits and the snake there, if he didn't already know Adam and Eve would be naughty?
also, God urged them to go forth and people the earth (right after he created them but before they ate the fruit???? correct me if I'm wrong

... so how could they have peopled the Earth without knowing each other?
yeah, I know this is slightly off-topic, but I'm hoping to get a view on this from someone who knows more about the Bible than me

This is not hard for me because I have children and I see what childlike innocence is like everyday. My two year old is necked right now. He loves to be necked and has no idea that he is showing his business and doesn’t care. Now my four year old knows that his business is private and keeps his cloths on. I think that is what Adam and Eve were like in the garden. Childlike in their understanding of their bodies and the function of the sex organs. It says in Gen 2:25 that they were naked and were not ashamed. I think that this shows that there was now shame about sex in the beginning. I’ve heard a lot of people speculate that they did not have sex in the garden, but I see no evidence of that. After the fall it says that the man had relations with his wife and she conceived, but I can’t say with any certainty that it was the first time. When they ate and became like adults. So their shame is the result of maturity. So maybe they did it in the garden and maybe they didn’t, but it would have been fine since they were created man and wife.

I believe that He did know that Adam and Eve would be naughty. He had in mind the Church since the beginning so since that was the plan of redemption He must have known. If you want I’ll look up that verse for you, but it’s not coming readily to mind at the moment.

They had to know each other to reproduce, that’s the design. by the way I'm Church of Christ, thanks for asking.



I think that its function is to reproduce like said above but would any one want to do it jsut for the sake of reproducing??? or do most people do it mainly for the pleasure?? i dont know anyone who says i just want sex to passes on my genes. i mean if it weren't for the pleasure wouldn't it just be in a way be a job of the human race to continue its self???


We tried for a year two different times to get pregnant and by the end of it it did feel like a chore. Every morning and every evening and not for pleasure but to conceive. Never worked though. We had our four all with the motivation of pleasure! So both can motivate, but pleasure is more fun! You never say I don’t want to either so just hurry up for pleasure. :blush:

[dbowen73]

I guess that is the whole point of the human developing ways of controling it this allows us to enjoy it with out the after affects. the perfect situation we get the pleasure out of the deal with out having to deal with the responsibility.


yep :) and who likes doing routine jobs? no-one :)
actually, some biologists think the pleasure aspect also has a biological function: to override humans' laziness and give them an incentive to reproduce...


This is not hard for me because I have children and I see what childlike innocence is like everyday. My two year old is necked right now. He loves to be necked and has no idea that he is showing his business and doesn’t care. Now my four year old knows that his business is private and keeps his cloths on. I think that is what Adam and Eve were like in the garden. Childlike in their understanding of their bodies and the function of the sex organs. It says in Gen 2:25 that they were naked and were not ashamed. I think that this shows that there was now shame about sex in the beginning. I’ve heard a lot of people speculate that they did not have sex in the garden, but I see no evidence of that. After the fall it says that the man had relations with his wife and she conceived, but I can’t say with any certainty that it was the first time. When they ate and became like adults. So their shame is the result of maturity. So maybe they did it in the garden and maybe they didn’t, but it would have been fine since they were created man and wife.

I believe that He did know that Adam and Eve would be naughty. He had in mind the Church since the beginning so since that was the plan of redemption He must have known. If you want I’ll look up that verse for you, but it’s not coming readily to mind at the moment.

They had to know each other to reproduce, that’s the design. by the way I'm Church of Christ, thanks for asking.





We tried for a year two different times to get pregnant and by the end of it it did feel like a chore. Every morning and every evening and not for pleasure but to conceive. Never worked though. We had our four all with the motivation of pleasure! So both can motivate, but pleasure is more fun! You never say I don’t want to either so just hurry up for pleasure. :blush:

Yeah i mean if u want to have a child yes but even tho ur main goal was to try and concieve was it still pleasurable?? if it was not pleasurable would u have want to continue try as long as u did??

[Lote-Tree]

I guess that is the whole point of the human developing ways of controling it this allows us to enjoy it with out the after affects. the perfect situation we get the pleasure out of the deal with out having to deal with the responsibility.

Hence being able to control it make us shift procreation to a secondary position and even that it is a matter of choice :-)

[Turk]

oh well... some Catholics or Puritans would argue that pleasre is part of sex but that the pleasure aspect of sex is a work of the devil.
i actually talked to a Catholic priest at my school once who maintained that sex was solely for procreation and the pleasure in it was invented by the devil.
---> thus even married couples should not have sex, unless they want to become pregnant. He serioulsy argued that even married couples should only have sex like once a year.

Ha? Really? {edit} Why everything have to extreme there?



Is Sex for Pleasure or Not?
Lote

Yes we need pleasure of sex too, but it's not the only aspect of sex.

No it seems like continuing human generation seems more important aspect of sex than having pleasure.

It seems like primal function is continuing the human species.

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

[Redzeppelin]

That we experience pleasure during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function any more than the same being true for eating. However, that we can produce an offspring during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function either; I think sex's primary function is to bond the husband and wife together through the intimacy of the act being conducted inside the framework of a loving, committed relationship. It's too much fun to just be about making babies, but it also bonds us emotionally to a level far too intense to exist merely for casual pleasure.

[Moira]

Some Function are pleasurable.



Then it must be DEFINATELY wrong ;-)

Well ... in this case we must disagree ..... see? Back to normal:lol: :lol: :lol:

Being able to controll it and decide when to have children brought about more pleasure (although some might argue we do not have the right to controll it) and freedom. It is a private affair of the couple ..... their decision and their choice.

But how much does our cultural background influence our sexuality?

[Turk]

Please do not personalise your arguments.
Oh i didn't want to personalise, i wanted to mean; it's almost everything extreme but not moderate in west.

[Virgil]

here is some - picked out randomly from the web.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

Regards,
Lote.

Bah, all that's telling you is that the third world countries are poor and lack resources to sufficiently support their populations. It does not address whether the world as a whole is over populated. The world is not over populated. There are more than enough resources to sustain this current population and way more. Farming productivity gains increase every year. China with its over one billion people has just in the last twenty years entered the industrialized world and no one eslewhere is straining for resources. Sorry if I think outside the box, but all this conventional wisdom is rather conventional.

[SleepyWitch]

Please do not personalise your arguments.


Ha? Really? {edit} Why everything have to extreme there?
hey, what did he say? how can I reply to him if I don't know what he said?
or maybe it's better I didn't reply?:D

whatever Turk said,
the extreme view I quoted is not my own. It's something a Catholic priest at our school said in the Politics Debating Society.
He claimed to represent the Catholic Church. I don't know if all Catholic clergymen share this view. But he said they do.


Bah, all that's telling you is that the third world countries are poor and lack resources to sufficiently support their populations. It does not address whether the world as a whole is over populated. The world is not over populated. There are more than enough resources to sustain this current population and way more. Farming productivity gains increase every year. China with its over one billion people has just in the last twenty years entered the industrialized world and no one eslewhere is straining for resources. Sorry if I think outside the box, but all this conventional wisdom is rather conventional.

heheh, i agree with you for once, Virgil. (up to a point, of course)
but the debate about overpopulation is extremely complex. if you want, I can dig out my notes from a Geography lesson about population and social geography.
our professor only explained about this the other day.

I think you are both right. There are enough resources for everyone to go around. But on the other hand, access to these resources is distributed unevenly.
even within countries that have sufficient quantities to feed all their citizens, some are rich and some are starving.
some countries even export loads of cereals while at the same time there is hunger and malnutrition in these same countries.

[Bii]

That we experience pleasure during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function any more than the same being true for eating. However, that we can produce an offspring during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function either; I think sex's primary function is to bond the husband and wife together through the intimacy of the act being conducted inside the framework of a loving, committed relationship. It's too much fun to just be about making babies, but it also bonds us emotionally to a level far too intense to exist merely for casual pleasure.

You've hit on an interesting point here Red, 'cos (unusually!) I kind of agree with you here! I agree that the primary function of sex is not pleasure, so perhaps Lote was wrong after all! However, in functional terms the primary function must be procreation, but the fact that it is pleasurable is what encourages us to do it. Perhaps the fact that it helps to create a bond is another aspect of what encourages us to do it also, but I consider this to be a secondary issue. You don't need sex to form a strong bond in a marital relationship (or otherwise) and many relationships flourish without it.

As you said, just like pleasure isn't the primary function of eating, pleasure isn't the primary function of sex. That being said, the fact that both acts are pleasurable makes us want to do it and therefore we 1) eat and survive and 2)procreate.

[Scheherazade]

hey, what did he say? how can I reply to him if I don't know what he said?
or maybe it's better I didn't reply?:D

The reminder is not addressed to one specific member only but to everyone who is involved in this debate.

The aim of this discussion is to discuss and find out about different perspectives on this issue (and, hopefully, learn a thing or two from each other as well). I am sure we can carry on a 'civilised' discussion, without turning it into *yet another* 'us vs you/I'm right; you are wrong' argument. :)

[SleepyWitch]

The reminder is not addressed to one specific member only but to everyone who is involved in this debate.

The aim of this discussion is to discuss and find out about different perspectives on this issue (and, hopefully, learn a thing or two from each other as well). I am sure we can carry on a 'civilised' discussion, without turning it into *yet another* 'us vs you/I'm right; you are wrong' argument. :)

heehee :) thanks Scher...
heehee, I suppose this is not the best opportunity to tease you :) I'll do it later then :D *just joking*

[Turk]

hey, what did he say? how can I reply to him if I don't know what he said?
or maybe it's better I didn't reply?:D


I didn't say something related to you and i don't care neither you reply or not. I don't have a problem with anyone, if you have, it doesn't bother me.

[SleepyWitch]

I didn't say something related to you and i don't care neither you reply or not. I don't have a problem with anyone, if you have, it doesn't bother me.

i don't have any problem with you, either :) I enjoy arguing with you a lot, so I'm glad you're here :) :D

there must have been a misunderstanding. I thought you said something about my post because you quoted my post and then yours was edited.
so I thought you said something interesting in connection with my post.

[motherhubbard]

I think it’s ironic that the common western view is that sex is a nasty little immoral vice and yet we are (in general mind you) more immoral in that it is common for people to “hook up” and engage in all kinds of forbidden sex and everything on television is sexual in nature even shampoo comercials. In the east it is common for women to be veiled and almost hidden, but sex is considered a natural function that should be part of a healthy marriage, for pleasure as well as procreation (not just procreation as is the assertion of many westerners) and yet there is less promiscuous sex. I hope that all came across the way I meant for it to. Does that have to do with a healthier more realistic view of sex or perhaps stern laws prohibiting immorality?

[Lote-Tree]

That we experience pleasure during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function any more than the same being true for eating. However, that we can produce an offspring during sex does not necessarily mean that that is its primary function either; I think sex's primary function is to bond the husband and wife together through the intimacy of the act being conducted inside the framework of a loving, committed relationship. It's too much fun to just be about making babies, but it also bonds us emotionally to a level far too intense to exist merely for casual pleasure.

I think I made the point that Primary function of sex has shifted from procreation to one that of pleasure only. Reproduction is now secondary and that is a matter of choice. That is the distinction I have made and that is my argument :-)



But how much does our cultural background influence our sexuality?

You mean how we express our sexuality? Yes, definately cultrally influenced. But sexuality as in homosexuality, bisexuality etc - no. It exists.

[Virgil]

heheh, i agree with you for once, Virgil. (up to a point, of course)
but the debate about overpopulation is extremely complex. if you want, I can dig out my notes from a Geography lesson about population and social geography.
our professor only explained about this the other day.

I think you are both right. There are enough resources for everyone to go around. But on the other hand, access to these resources is distributed unevenly.
even within countries that have sufficient quantities to feed all their citizens, some are rich and some are starving.
some countries even export loads of cereals while at the same time there is hunger and malnutrition in these same countries.

The answer Sleepy is for the poor countries to modernize their economies. It is amazing how far India and China have come once they realized that communism keeps people poor. What was it that Churchill said, "shared misery."

[kathycf]

The answer Sleepy is for the poor countries to modernize their economies. It is amazing how far India and China have come once they realized that communism keeps people poor. What was it that Churchill said, "shared misery."
Doesn't China still have that one child per family policy still though? I thought that was implemented to deal with concerns about ever growing population.


I think I made the point that Primary function of sex has shifted from procreation to one that of pleasure only. Reproduction is now secondary and that is a matter of choice. That is the distinction I have made and that is my argument :-)
That was your opinion, yes. There actually was a time in human history when it was not understood how sex could lead to offspring....especially considering the gestation period is 9 months. Yet, people waaaay back then engaged in sex...because they liked to. :)

[Lote-Tree]

Bah, all that's telling you is that the third world countries are poor and lack resources to sufficiently support their populations.
It does not address whether the world as a whole is over populated. The world is not over populated. There are more than enough resources to sustain this current population and way more.


How much more - 10, 20, 30 billion?



Farming productivity gains increase every year. China with its over one billion people has just in the last twenty years entered the industrialized world and no one eslewhere is straining for resources.


And they have one child policy. I wonder why?



Sorry if I think outside the box, but all this conventional wisdom is rather conventional.

It is about numbers Virgil. Elementary numbers.

[Virgil]

Doesn't China still have that one child per family policy still though? I thought that was implemented to deal with concerns about ever growing population.

Yes, i beleive they do and as they grow economically i'm sure that will end someday.


That was your opinion, yes. There actually was a time in human history when it was not understood how sex could lead to offspring....especially considering the gestation period is 9 months. Yet, people waaaay back then engaged in sex...because they liked to. :)
I don't know about that Kathy. I tend to think that's an old wive's tale. People bred aniamls going back in pre-historic times. Somehow they knew what to do to get animals pregnant, they must have known what they were doing. Of course they didn't know biologically what was going on. There were theories in the middle ages about the male seman implanting something in the woman, but they still knew about the mechanics of "doing it". :) :) :D


How much more - 10, 20, 30 billion?

I don't know. When productivity stops then we will know what we can sustain. But productivity continues. This is what I meant when I asked by what standard are we over populated and you didn't answer that question.


And they have one child policy. I wonder why?
I answered this in a way. They have not had the econonmic progress to internally sustain their population. When they do, this will go away. But that has nothing to do by what the world population can sustain.


It is about numbers Virgil. Elementary numbers.
I'll ask again, by what standard?

[Lote-Tree]

I don't know. When productivity stops then we will know what we can sustain.


So what happens to the excess population when productivity stops? It's not economics. It is about reproduction. The numbers game. There are finite resources and there is finite space. But our reproduction is not limiting by any of these factors. Look at africa - very poor but reproduction continues.

[Taliesin]

Depends on the individual and his/her views. If the primary function of sex for him/her is children/pleasure/glorification of God/acquiring magic powers/an excuse to sell encyclopedias, then for him/her it is children/pleasure/glorification of God/acquiring magic powers/an excuse to sell encyclopedias. So that can't be what this question is about.
So what other perspectives are there?
God? Since We are an agnostic and our sort of God is the sort about whose existence We can't ever know about and who therefore probably doesn't care what folk do in their bedrooms, then this perspective is out of the question.

Society? Now that would be quite interesting. The function of sex for society... hmmm actually, the things that come to mind are:
1)Connecting people. A society is a network of connections and sex surely connects people. (somewhy we think of Nokia at this phrase)
2)providing a next generation that would pay the pensions and suchlike
3)lessening people's aggressive/destructive feelings and making them happy. Isn't there some kind of correlation between societies/times when there were too many young men who couldn't find wives and destructive behaviour? Also happy folks tend to be more effective at work an so on.
4)Sex industry, providing work and food for many people
5)Showing social values - we are so liberal/conservative/human rights activists/ religious/whatever that this kind of behaviour is totally acceptable/forbidden and happens all the time/we don't see it at all/we see it sometimes to our great relief/horror.
6)Politics. Power games. A part of the first point, probably.
7)42 (well, you practically asked for the meaning of sex)
8)Can't think of an eight one although it probably could include encyclopedias.

So, as for asking for function, we have to ask for whom, what other perspectives than religious, individual and ...er...societal are there?

[Virgil]

So what happens to the excess population when productivity stops? It's not economics. It is about reproduction. The numbers game. There are finite resources and there is finite space. But our reproduction is not limiting by any of these factors. Look at africa - very poor but reproduction continues.

You keep arguing about local problems when the origianl argument was on how big a population the world can sustain. The answer in ending poverty is to bring good economics and industry to these places, not stopping them from having children, which is a freedom that they express. What are you going to do, dictate that they don't have children (even in China that doesn't work), sterilize them?

[Bii]

You keep arguing about local problems when the origianl argument was on how big a population the world can sustain.

Well, actually I think the original argument was about the function of sex, but maybe I misunderstood?......

[SleepyWitch]

God? Since We are an agnostic and our sort of God is the sort about whose existence We can't ever know about and who therefore probably doesn't care what folk do in their bedrooms, then this perspective is out of the question.



heehee, Tal, you two are hilarious :) what if one of you was an agnostic and the other one wasn't :) wouldn't this be fun? you could have the most interesting discussions all on your own :)

[Lote-Tree]

You keep arguing about local problems when the origianl argument was on how big a population the world can sustain.


It is not "local" problem. It is global. It is about finite resources. Some seem to consume this finite resources more than others. So consumation of resources is Global. And more people you have more is the consumation. But there is also a paradox. The more wealthy you are more you consume. So more people consume more resources. More wealthy - consume more resources :-)



The answer in ending poverty is to bring good economics and industry to these places, not stopping them from having children, which is a freedom that they express.


When you run out of space - economics will do zilch for them. That is why they are trying to limit the numbers.



What are you going to do, dictate that they don't have children (even in China that doesn't work), sterilize them?

How you solve the population problem is everyone's problem. But fact is this. We have finite resource. Finite Space. We can't go on consuming this finite resources at this rate. It is simple numbers.

[Shalot]

I guess sex is both for reproduction and pleasure, though in Catholic school, we learned that it was wrong to use any sort of family planning method (i.e. birth control) other than the rhythm method, which involves the woman taking her temperature and writing it down everyday and other cumbersome little activities so that she could determine when she was ovulating.

They have these little ovulation tests you can buy at Walgreens. I wonder if the Church permits use of those? They sure don't want you to use a condom or anything else that would prevent you from becoming pregnant. Don't those rules suggest that the Church fundamentally believes that sex is a dirty thing? But we were also told that God wants us to enjoy sex, but also that all sexual relations should be open to life (i.e. don't do anything to purposely prevent conception).

But the rhythm method is so cumbersome that not many can use it with success, and since it's the only Church approved method, it seems like the Church doesn't want you to experience pleasure. If you can manage to muster some pleasure out of it without worrying about whether you're going to have another snotty nose to wipe and mouth to feed, then good for you, I guess but they're not going to make it easy.

[kathycf]

I don't know about that Kathy. I tend to think that's an old wive's tale.
Are you implying that I am an old wife? :flare: :p

I was thinking caveman era, but no matter. I have no scientific proof to back up my statement anyway. :lol:

I can't say that I agree that sex itself has changed, for pleasure or procreation, merely people's views on it. I think motherhubbard makes a compelling point about the clitoris. That is the only organ on a human body whose sole purpose is to provide pleasure, which speaks to my mind as saying that sex was perhaps always meant to be both a means of reproduction and a means of providing pleasure.

But it seems from my own personal point of view, that regarding sex as merely a "recreational activity" cheapens it. I read, play videogames and watch movies for recreation...sexuality is a personal issue to me, and one I happen to believe finds it's fullest expression within the context of a loving and stable relationship.

[Lote-Tree]

But it seems from my own personal point of view, that regarding sex as merely a "recreational activity" cheapens it.


I agree with you there Kath.

I think sex should be done in a meaningful relationship. Then it becomes an wonderful experience and something to be treasured.

[EAP]

sex is fun, yes... what is this procreation thingy that you speak of?

[Lote-Tree]

sex is fun, yes... what is this procreation thingy that you speak of?

LOL :-)

If you don't know already I suggest you do so quickly before you impregnate some unfortunate gal!!!

[Virgil]

It is not "local" problem. It is global. It is about finite resources. Some seem to consume this finite resources more than others. So consumation of resources is Global. And more people you have more is the consumation. But there is also a paradox. The more wealthy you are more you consume. So more people consume more resources. More wealthy - consume more resources :-)



When you run out of space - economics will do zilch for them. That is why they are trying to limit the numbers.



How you solve the population problem is everyone's problem. But fact is this. We have finite resource. Finite Space. We can't go on consuming this finite resources at this rate. It is simple numbers.

Where did you ever hear we have finite resources??? We don't have a hunger problem in the developed world; we have an overweight problem. There is way more food than necessary in modern economies. Like I said food productivity continues to rise. Nuclear energy is infinite. Everything can be made of some sort of plastic, which the raw materials are infinte. What are you talking about? Finite space? We have eight million people in NYC in a 20 mile circle. Sorry you're wrong. There is still plenty of space and resources for probably triple the world population as it stands today. From what i gather in your post above you do seem to advocate some sort of sterization or dictatorial program. If free people want to have children they have a right to.

[Turk]

Where did you ever hear we have finite resources??? We don't have a hunger problem in the developed world; we have an overweight problem. There is way more food than necessary in modern economies. Like I said food productivity continues to rise. Nuclear energy is infinite. Everything can be made of some sort of plastic, which the raw materials are infinte. What are you talking about? Finite space? We have eight million people in NYC in a 20 mile circle. Sorry you're wrong. There is still plenty of space and resources for probably triple the world population as it stands today. From what i gather in your post above you do seem to advocate some sort of sterization or dictatorial program. If free people want to have children they have a right to.

:thumbs_up

But also rich countries should remember to help Africa or South Asia too.

Also i would like to add; i believe it's really possible in near future men will start to use sources of space too (though i don't think when men build a moon base over the moon he would learn to share his food with his human brothers:lol: ).

[UltimaHybrid]

Hmm sex??? hmm i think it should be in the Olympics...and me having a long tongue...and a lot of knowledge of sex and what to do ...in my opinion sex can be done in several ways 1) meaninglessly 2) with love 3) or make family..wait nevermind.. forget i said anything....wait hang on.. i have a tongue.. well everyone does but mine can touch my chin.. i mean the bottom of my chin.. why does the opposite sex seemed to be mesmerised by my tongue i have my ideas but uh... they aren't rated "G"

uh sorry.. how about no one replies to my post.. yeah thats a good idea

[Video Drone]

uh sorry.. how about no one replies to my post.. yeah thats a good ideaA word is like a sparrow, once you let it out, you won't catch it. (c) Crude translation of a famous Russian saying :D

[UltimaHybrid]

A word is like a sparrow, once you let it out, you won't catch it. (c) Crude translation of a famous Russian saying :Di'm having way too much fun on this site..lol

[Stanislaw]

I agree with you there Kath.

I think sex should be done in a meaningful relationship. Then it becomes an wonderful experience and something to be treasured.

someone once said: "sex without love is just healthy exercise" :D


Where did you ever hear we have finite resources??? We don't have a hunger problem in the developed world; we have an overweight problem. There is way more food than necessary in modern economies. Like I said food productivity continues to rise. Nuclear energy is infinite. Everything can be made of some sort of plastic, which the raw materials are infinte. What are you talking about? Finite space? We have eight million people in NYC in a 20 mile circle. Sorry you're wrong. There is still plenty of space and resources for probably triple the world population as it stands today. From what i gather in your post above you do seem to advocate some sort of sterization or dictatorial program. If free people want to have children they have a right to.

I agree, globally, our planet can support us, we just need to slow down as a planet and take the time to switch over to cleaner fuel sources, and learn to work together reather than against eachother


:thumbs_up

But also rich countries should remember to help Africa or South Asia too.

Also i would like to add; i believe it's really possible in near future men will start to use sources of space too (though i don't think when men build a moon base over the moon he would learn to share his food with his human brothers:lol: ).

Rich countries should...but it should be noted that the problem lies with the leadership of the countries being helped, untill they decide to help their people, rather than trying to become a powerful war lord things could improve.

and in the future, we may live on the moon, it'd be awesome, but probably someone would put giant thrusters on the moon...and a mega laser, and turn it into a "deathstar" :D

[Lote-Tree]

Where did you ever hear we have finite resources???


Earth has finite size?



We don't have a hunger problem in the developed world; we have an overweight problem.


And you consume thrice as much resources. It's a paradox. The rich you are more you consume. The more people you have more you consume.



Nuclear energy is infinite.


False. There is finite resource called Uranium on Earth.



Everything can be made of some sort of plastic, which the raw materials are infinte.


False. Plastic products are derived from Oil products - which are remains of organic material from the past. Thus finite.



What are you talking about? Finite space? We have eight million people in NYC in a 20 mile circle. Sorry you're wrong.


So you would not mind all the overpopulated people from India living in that space?



There is still plenty of space and resources for probably triple the world population as it stands today.


If you continue as this rate then this tripling will come soon...thus we ran out of space and resources too.



From what i gather in your post above you do seem to advocate some sort of sterization or dictatorial program.


This is already happened in India - voluntary of course. And in China one child family is enforced.



If free people want to have children they have a right to.

We are not debating the freedom to have children. But over-population and sustainability and finite resources.

[Stanislaw]

I wouldn't worry about humanity's survival on this planet, though we are quite skilled at killing our selves off...theres only 2 organisms better than surviving than humans...rats and cockroaches...we're persistent beggers.

[Virgil]

Earth has finite size?



And you consume thrice as much resources. It's a paradox. The rich you are more you consume. The more people you have more you consume.



False. There is finite resource called Uranium on Earth.



False. Plastic products are derived from Oil products - which are remains of organic material from the past. Thus finite.



So you would not mind all the overpopulated people from India living in that space?



If you continue as this rate then this tripling will come soon...thus we ran out of space and resources too.



This is already happened in India - voluntary of course. And in China one child family is enforced.



We are not debating the freedom to have children. But over-population and sustainability and finite resources.

:lol: You have heard of recycling plastics, have you? I see your part of the hypochondirac crowd looking for fears. Let's just say we disagree. I maintain that we could triple our population and can easily maintain it. And everyone would be overweight like in the western world.

[Stanislaw]

:lol: I see your part of the hypochondirac crowd looking for fears. Let's just say we disagree. I maintain that we could triple our population and can easily maintain it. And everyone would be overweight like in the western world.

I don't know if everyone would be over weight... what about all the poor models? :D

Their is a great deal of unused space on this planet, if fertile ground was converted to farming and production of food, and infertile ground was converted to living quarters or production centre's our planet could easily survive untill our sun nova's...and by that time some one will have converted the moon into a deathstar (I think that was space 1999?)

[Lote-Tree]

:lol: I see your part of the hypochondirac crowd looking for fears.


Not fears. Just elementary numbers. Numbers say finite.



Let's just say we disagree.


No problema. But don't say things are infinite when they are not.

[Virgil]

Not fears. Just elementary numbers. Numbers say finite.



No problema. But don't say things are infinite when they are not.

They are for all intents and purposes infinite. I am an engineer you know. You have heard of recycling plastics have you?

[Lote-Tree]

They are for all intents and purposes infinite. I am an engineer you know. You have heard of recycling plastics have you?

And how much of that is recycled?

[Virgil]

And how much of that is recycled?

What difference does that make? If it's in the garbage dump it can be digged out. And there is plenty of oil to go on for centuries.

[Lote-Tree]

What difference does that make? If it's in the garbage dump it can be digged out. And there is plenty of oil to go on for centuries.

But it is still a finite resource? You can't recycle "10 tonne" of plastic amongst 30 billion people?

[Virgil]

Here you go Lote. Right out of today's newspaper. Is this what kind of policy you would enforce world wide?


Asylum OKd for Chinese man who was forcibly sterilized
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 5, 2007

(06-05) 16:45 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court approved political asylum today for a Chinese man who said he was forcibly sterilized after his wife gave birth to a second child, and left for U.S. territory 17 years later.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Jian Ping Liu's account of his compelled vasectomy was supported by medical evidence and by U.S. State Department reports on China's population-control policy.

Under U.S. law, anyone from China who is subjected to or threatened with sterilization is considered a victim of political persecution and is eligible for asylum. The three-judge court panel overruled a U.S. immigration judge who had concluded that Liu's story wasn't believable because China rarely used "force or compulsion'' to sterilize its citizens.

"Liu credibly testified that birth control officials threatened to 'take down' his home if he did not undergo the procedure and began to carry out the threat by breaking the door and shattering the windows of his house,'' the court said.

Liu, who lived in coastal Fujian province, was sterilized in 1984 for violating China's one-child policy but was unable to leave until 1993, when he got a permit to work in a factory in Saipan, said his lawyer, Jishang Li. When the permit expired, he said, Liu entered Guam illegally in 2001 and applied for asylum. His family remains in China, Li said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/05/BAGI5Q9HKQ4.DTL

[Lote-Tree]

Hello Virgil,


Here you go Lote. Right out of today's newspaper. Is this what kind of policy you would enforce world wide?


This is not about Feedom to have children. This is about sustainability. It is about how many people the Earth can support with it's natural resources.

You are saying that it can support around 21 billion. So what happens when we reach that figure? Do we limit our numbers? Do you not think there will be a time when we will have to control our reproduction?

What the article proves that it is not possible to sustain a large number of people on a finite space. That is why such drastic actions are being carried out.

I do not approve of this. No one can. But you can see what might happen if our reproduction and consuming goes unchecked...

[Virgil]

I think your fears are unfounded. As nations become industrialized and modern, populations shrink not expand. Europe is in a demographic decline, big time. In the US, although not as bad as Europe, we too have to bring in immigrants to maintain our population. World population will level off as everyone enters the modern world.

[Lote-Tree]

I think your fears are unfounded. As nations become industrialized and modern, populations shrink not expand.


And these nations consume more resources than the millions of people in india. This is the paradox isn't it? The more wealthy a nation becomes the more it consumes...why is this Virgil?

[Turk]

Because capitalist economy is based on "consuming". In that kind of system, a man's worth is equal to what he have, what he consumes.

[Lote-Tree]

Because capitalist economy is based on "consuming". In that kind of system, a man's worth is equal to what he have, what he consumes.

We are all consumers. Regardless of what system you are in. China is communist state...but its rate of consuming is getting exponential...

[Turk]

Of course we are all consumers, we have to be. But today's capitalist society is based on more production/profit and natural result of that is making people believe they have to consume more to make themselves feel good and valuable. That's why some calls it "consumption society".

[dbowen73]

i think it all makes sense that we create a way to level off the human population over all because if we did not have a way to limit wouldn't we inturn overpopulate and then have more problems with epidemics and pagues causing more problems than what we had before??

[SleepyWitch]

I think your fears are unfounded. As nations become industrialized and modern, populations shrink not expand. Europe is in a demographic decline, big time. In the US, although not as bad as Europe, we too have to bring in immigrants to maintain our population. World population will level off as everyone enters the modern world.

*Sleepy-the-Geography reporting for duty*

this is a wide spread assumption and it is justified when we look at how Europe and the US developed.
but, unfortunately, this isn't happening in countries like India.
I agree that the world population will probably level off at some point, but at the moment this demographic transition is lagging behind economic and industrial developments.
This is partly due to the fact that people live longer because of better nutrition and medicine but birth rates are still high (for example because of people's attitudes).

in the so-called developed world, life expectancy is high, too, but birth rates are lower.

Even if attitudes change and every body decides to have only 2 children instead of 5, for example, population growth with still continue for a while. This is because young people (fertile women) make up a larger percentage of the total population than in the First World.
example:
FIRST generation procreating accord to "old" attitudes + SECOND generation still procreating accord to "old" attitudes

a family has 5 children ---> each of them has 5 children of their own --> there are 25 children---> 25x5 --->....

FIRST generation procreating to "old" attitudes, SECOND according to "new"
a family has 5 children ---> each of them has 2 children ---> there are 10 children ---> these have 2 children each ---> there are 20 children---> these 20 have 2 children each ---> 40

---> IF attitudes change (and they are changing in some "developing countries") population growth will slow down eventually.
the question is whether it will slow down early enough for the population to reach an environmenatally, socially and economically "sustainable" level

edit: demographic transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition) (not exactly the most well-written article about it, but anway...)

[SleepyWitch]

They are for all intents and purposes infinite. I am an engineer you know. You have heard of recycling plastics have you?

if you include recycling plastic in the equation I'm inclined to agree that resources are more or less infinite.
but right now it's not happening on a large enough scale. over here, we seperate our rubbish and put all the plastic in a "yellow sack", which is collected by its very own rubbish men (different ones than for the other waste).
but do you know what happens to it?
it's shipped to Nigeria and dumped there on the beach or other places where toxics can leak out unhindered.
officially, it gets recycled. but it's an open secret that the "yellow sack" has spawned a whole new branch of the economy, which is solely concerned with where to ship and dump the rubbish and how to make a lot of money with it.

... so what does it take to make people stop this kind of thing and start recycling for real?
consider the following scenario:
the world is about to run out of resources. the only way we can keep up a moderately "high" standard of living for all of us is by doing large-scale recycling.
What will happen?

[Turk]

Today in Russia there's a significant problem of decreasing population. In future China will lose a lot of population too, in fact problem will be old population (statistics says India will be number one populated country). So i don't believe population will be a big problem in future (at least it won't be problem of developed countries, on the other hand; today it's a problem in underdeveloped countries).


it's shipped to Nigeria and dumped there on the beach or other places where toxics can leak out unhindered.
officially, it gets recycled.

This problem's source is again your capitalist-selfish system. It's possible to recycle them; but they are not doing that, instead of they are paying money to poor countries to send those junks, because it's a cheaper way.

Anyway, in this subject i am with Virgil about most of points. I don't think population, junk, environment are true problems, true problem is people's mentality.

[Virgil]

but right now it's not happening on a large enough scale. over here, we seperate our rubbish and put all the plastic in a "yellow sack", which is collected by its very own rubbish men (different ones than for the other waste).
but do you know what happens to it?
it's shipped to Nigeria and dumped there on the beach or other places where toxics can leak out unhindered.
officially, it gets recycled. but it's an open secret that the "yellow sack" has spawned a whole new branch of the economy, which is solely concerned with where to ship and dump the rubbish and how to make a lot of money with it.


You ship your garbage to Nigeria? That has to be very expensive.

[SleepyWitch]

Today in Russia there's a significant problem of decreasing population. In future China will lose a lot of population too, in fact problem will be old population (statistics says India will be number one populated country). So i don't believe population will be a big problem in future (at least it won't be problem of developed countries, on the other hand; today it's a problem in underdeveloped countries).



This problem's source is again your capitalist-selfish system. It's possible to recycle them; but they are not doing that, instead of they are paying money to poor countries to send those junks, because it's a cheaper way.

Anyway, in this subject i am with Virgil about most of points. I don't think population, junk, environment are true problems, true problem is people's mentality.

let me join the club.


This problem's source is again your capitalist-selfish system. It's possible to recycle them; but they are not doing that, instead of they are paying money to poor countries to send those junks, because it's a cheaper way.
yep, I totally agree. but i'd like to add that it's not my capitalist-selfish system, but that of my country. I do not like this system any more than you do.
ya, I totally agree that the true problem is people's mentality.
but my question is what will it take to change the mentality of those responsible? does the world have to go to the dogs first before they change their mentality? or will they manage to change their mentality in time?
what's your opinion?


You ship your garbage to Nigeria? That has to be very expensive.

apparently it's less expensive than investing in R&D and large-scale recycling facilities. maybe the shipping is expensive, but the dumping is cheap because Nigeria is relatively poor and will allow garbage to be dumped for a small fee

[Turk]

let me join the club.


yep, I totally agree. but i'd like to add that it's not my capitalist-selfish system, but that of my country. I do not like this system any more than you do.
ya, I totally agree that the true problem is people's mentality.
but my question is what will it take to change the mentality of those responsible? does the world have to go to the dogs first before they change their mentality? or will they manage to change their mentality in time?
what's your opinion?

Welcome to the club. :lol:

I don't mean it your system, i know you didn't create it. You know, you live in west; when i told "your capitalist system" i point west, not personally. On the other hand i want to make it evident i hate capitalism.

My opininon about it is; no i don't think they will manage to change their mentality. Unless God creates a miracle (some people believes Jesus will come back to save us). Because the world and system is so chaotic and everything mixed. Also leaders of world are really stupid dogs (including my country's, btw i would like to say i don't believe in democracy too).


You ship your garbage to Nigeria? That has to be very expensive.

They are mostly highly toxic and radioactive waste. You know it's realy expensive to refine (recycle?) them. So sendind to underdeveloped countries seems evil but cheaper.

[SleepyWitch]

They are mostly highly toxic and radioactive waste. You know it's realy expensive to refine (recycle?) them. So sendind to underdeveloped countries seems evil but cheaper.

oh, yes.. i totally forgot about those (i only talked about plastic)... it's even documented in a report by the UN, so it's not just some conspiracy theory I've made up


We have eight million people in NYC in a 20 mile circle. Sorry you're wrong. There is still plenty of space and resources for probably triple the world population as it stands today.

my dear sir, of course there is still plenty of space left.
but would you seriously want to convert vast stretches of landscape into giant cities?
there's also the question of "quality" of living involved. of course, for a big-city dweller like you, life in the city may seem great. (i like it better than being permanently stuck somewhere in the woods myself)
but there are those who argue that country life is nicer.

one of the problems is that while there is still plenty of space left, there are various different uses this space could be put to.
e.g. building cities
buidling factories and plants
using them for sports
leaving them relatively untouched, so people can enjoy nature
using them for farming

---> this creates conflicts. different groups of people want to use them for different purposes and each of these purposes has its merits

about big cities, even those in the "developed world" have already reached their maximum capacity in terms of the infrastructure they can provide, quality of living, security, social (in-)equality.... look at London or Tokyo for example

[Taliesin]

Right, Sleepy.
We would just like to emphasize that the space used by you is not just the spot you occupy, nor your house/apartment, but also the space used to provide food for you, space used to produce consumer goods for you and so on, which can be quite large areas.
If all the world was a big city, then what the hell would you eat?




This problem's source is again your capitalist-selfish system. It's possible to recycle them; but they are not doing that, instead of they are paying money to poor countries to send those junks, because it's a cheaper way.

Anyway, in this subject i am with Virgil about most of points. I don't think population, junk, environment are true problems, true problem is people's mentality.

You know, Turk, although we disagree with you on most points, we are forced to agree you on this point.

[SleepyWitch]

Right, Sleepy.
We would just like to emphasize that the space used by you is not just the spot you occupy, nor your house/apartment, but also the space used to provide food for you, space used to produce consumer goods for you and so on, which can be quite large areas.
If all the world was a big city, then what the hell would you eat?



yep, that's exactly what I mean.
the term "ecological footpring" comes to mind.