The filter appears to be some dumb computerized filter, that instantly rejects posts for mysterious reasons, not bothering to give meaningful error messages. I suspect it may also limit posts per poster to maybe 1 a day, or 1 until somebody responds? That might appear reasonable, until a computer savvy person like me, has to divide up my post, to find the "offending" word, since there is no Preview nor Edit option. It's a very poor design, and certainly not something I would program. I at least would put in meaningful error messages and a Preview option.

Thanks for the compliment.

You may also notice that the text formatting on my posts has drastically improved. That's because I put in hidden HTML tags, which some seem to work, but I still have to run all my paragraphs together as I see them while typing, otherwise it claims my post is too long, or some such nonsense. Why in the world should it could Return characters rather than total characters?

Reply to rand:

Part 2:

There's something wrong with the filter on this message board. It won't tell me what it is objecting to, so I have to post piece by piece to find out.

Reply to rand:

look, all i am saying is let's find a way to feed the people we have now before we go multiplying like rabbits.

Okay, everybody, no sex until we find some way. Rand says so. No more fun at night. Happy now? Come on, people can't just stop multiplying until everything is hunky-dory. Improving things, and humans multiplying, are corequisites. Things that must happen simutaneously. Some people having less children, good people having less children, isn't going to help put food on people's plates, in other or far-away areas afflicted by the wars caused by evil people.

Some lady called into some radio talk show that I was listening to one day, expressing fear to have a child in today's sinful world. The talk show host, a woman herself, nearly scolded her, asking if good people don't have children, then who's left? If we are to occupy the world for good, and be salt to the world, and to deter the evil, then shouldn't we be having children, rather than driving ourselves into oblivion by contraception? And when has there ever been, any particularly good time for having children, in this world? I can't think of any such time. In some respects, things are better, if you train your children in the ways of the Lord. For at least our children will likely live until adulthood and have children themselves, and there are so many interesting things these days that people can do. And we can't hardly go anyplace anymore, that isn't air conditioned. The world seems to be getting, almost "too comfortable" for our own good.

maybe with advanced technology earth could sustain trillions and trillions of people, but as of now, at this moment in time, we don't have that technology.

Yeah, today's technology might only support but a mere 200 billion people? Who knows? But before we can grow to trillions and trillions, wouldn't we have to first grow to 10 billion? Demographers don't event think we will grow to 10 trillion people, due to rampant non-breeding and under-breeding. Let's maybe wait until there are more than 10 billion people on earth, before planning how to accomodate a trillion people? First things first.

Reply to Soylent Yellow:

The whole story was stupid, there is no way a population would grow to the point where everyone was standing up bumping into each other like goofy robots playing bumper cars.

Oh really? Perhaps you don't understand how "unchecked" human population growth, tends to grow exponentially, and "eventually" reaching "standing room only" levels. More babies means more future parents means even more future babies. But that happens so far into the future as to be a ridiculous extrapolation. Most any basic math or statistics student should know that the further out one extrapolates from known data, the less reliable the prediction.

And of course I understand that if the world was to go along with what I advocate, have more larger families, such a scenario may seem to become more likely, with booming populations of young people who also will soon want to have still more children, it still is rather unlikely. There are too many unverifiable assumptions involved in such a reckless prediction. It is assumed that people will multiply at the same rate "forever." That people will never spread out to other worlds. That people could never think of stacking up people into vertical cities or archologies. It can't possibly occur within the forseeable future. More people do not necessarily bring more problems, as people tend to solve problems in time. And even if the world did someday gain "too many" people, that doesn't mean that we are anywhere close to "too many" people now.

People bumping into each other? Yeah, I think they had some brief scene like that, in THX 1138. They said in the DVD commentary, that they had a few people continuously circling back and forth right in front of the camera, to make it look convincing. Must be too expensive to get enough extras huh?

Im guessing it was like a 24/7 orgie to produce that many people.

Ah, you weren't supposed to figure that out. Shame on you. Now we have solved the mystery of why the people weren't more anxious to leave with Captain Kirk. And why they couldn't seem to do much anything about their supposed population "problem." Also, I would think that baby booms tend to be "contagious." Seeing others having babies makes more people want babies too. And yet they didn't find the time to see any visably pregnant women in that episode? And no cute, adorable babies anywhere? Nothing warm or positive about having so many people alive? Sort of like those stupid "sex education" classes in which children have to carry around some lifeless sack of flour or something, or some electronic "cry-baby" doll, rather than something warm and cuddly for a "baby." That's so wrong. If children are to "practice" being a Mom and carry around a "baby" everywhere, why not at least a warm rabbit or something? I suppose you can put a rabbit on a leash, so it doesn't run off?

Of course they were probably having "orgies" of perhaps nearly global extent, because they said there's no place of privacy anywhere, and yet the people consider every human life sacred and "birth control" repugnant. So where babies continue to be born, people must be having sex. But then, maybe their sex in public isn't exactly orgy-like. It could be as common, as to see a woman pregnant in public. It wouldn't always be arrousing to see somebody else engaging in sex, if one already just had sex. And I don't think they said whether they were promiscuous, or strickly monogamous, which obviously could also be possible, especially with their "sacred" view of life. Either way, on a planet with no disease, that means no STDs too right?

It would be unreasonable to expect the people to keep their sex private, in a world with no place of privacy anymore. This of course is similar to the scenario of a family renting a motel room on a trip, and they "think" the children are asleep? For children to catch their parents having sex, really should be no big deal, because all our parents must have been "doing it." Most all people have sex, so while some modesty is of course expected, complete privacy isn't always realistic.

But those 1960s radicals that inspired such a ridiculous story, must not have thought just how much work is involved in birthing another billion babies. They make it sound so easy, as if somebody sneezes, and the world is suddenly overrun with people. How ridiculous.

In reality, as societies become wealthier and more technologically advanced, birthrates tend to drop as children are no longer needed for labor.

That's the "demographic transition" theory, but why should it have to be that way always? Some anti-population website points out that there is nothing about having money in one's pockets that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The dirty secret is that much of this "demographic tran

{i am a christian conservative from the south so i don't equate animal life with the same value and worth i do people.} Well that's great, and because I believe human life is sacred and a gift from God, and humans to be the most beautiful an d interesting creatures on the planet, is a practical reason I believe that humans should be prolific, and "birth control" considered repugnant. I admire the faith of people who go against the delusions of the culture, and allow themselves to be blessed with sometimes big or unplanned families. {but even in my relatively underpopulated part of the country i see more and more homes and businesses being built every day, forcing animals out of the forests and into our back yards.} I am not so fond of urban sprawl in the form of building lots of usually empty buildings to run up the cost of living. But if urban sprawl is mostly population-driven, more and more people coming to life and needing someplace to live, then I am all for it. In the past and present, people depopulated the countryside to move to the city in search of jobs, opportunity, and excitement. It would be cool to see the people move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities because there's getting to be just so many of them.

{you don't want to know how many wild animals like armadillos, opossums and racoons i see squished flat in the road every day.} Animals eat and prey upon each other. What's the difference really? The real concern is that animal roadkill doesn't damage your car.

{just last week i watched three deer, doe's, in my garden, munching on the greens. it was a pleasant sight, but i'm sure the animals would have preferred to be in the woods and as far away from people as possible.} Actually, let me propose a theory. I am not so convince that humans are "crowding" the animals. Rather, human populations are perhaps getting so big, that the human scent reeking from cities and towns all around, confuses the animals, and they don't know which direction to go anymore to get away from people. Or there is too much a lack of people hunting deer, so they lose too much of their natural fear of people. Or human environments don't seem so "strange" to wild animals, when humans are increasingly "everywhere."

{unfortunately, the nearby woods had been clear cut and the animals had nowhere else to go.} And had the forest not been more fragmented, wouldn't you be at more risk of natural forest fires? Urban areas tend to be so thinned and manually pruned, that forest fires often run short of fuel upon reaching our roads and clearings.

{and although i do love the original, and as far as i'm concerned only star trek, it did go in for a lot of that sixties radicalisim.} I used to like The Original Series (TOS), but after seeing The Next Generation, in comparison, Captain Kirk seemed reckless and almost court martial material. TOS was rather cool and "futuristic," until The Next Generation eclipsed it by being even more futuristic. Then TOS seemed more outdated and quaint. It's computers were cold and mechanical sounding. The Next Generation had far friendlier and interesting computers.

{and while i do not believe in abortion, i see nothing wrong with birth control.} But the contraception mentality leads to the "culture of death" abortion mentality. There are pro-life articles all over the internet that explain this, since the Church establishment in general, doesn't seem to want to "dirty its hands" in politics. I could post some links later, but I don't know if this message board can be made to make proper text formatting to make long posts more readible. One article arguing for "natural family planning," claimed that "artificial" contraceptives, are like, say if you were sending out wedding invitations, and you thought of somebody you didn't want to invite. Well you could just not send them an invitation. Or you could send them a "disinvitation," telling them of the wedding, and that if they come, people will escort them back out to the parking lot. Artificial contraception sends God a "disinvitation" to his blessings of children. Where simply rhythm or something supposedly more "natural," is like just not sending any invitation. Less offensive, but perhaps similar results. Well I don't c