JohnDBarrow

One of the biggest problems in this world is human overpopulation. Adults with means can adopt children in need of homes unselfishly as opposed to making more babies. Whenever the planet is overcrowded, life widely suffers needlessly. Overpopulation is one of the main reasons desirable employment can be so difficult to attain. When people are fewer in numbers, hiring is much more in demand to furnish the economy with needed human resources. The world needs so many humans to make our modern living and comfort possible. If there were only 1,000 living people in the entire world at any given time, we would be still living in caves with loin cloths and hunting with spears and gathering. It takes so much combined world manpower (and perhaps womanpower?) to bring you, among many other things, electricity to your homes, food to your table, medicine to your ailing bodies, clothes to your back and new automobiles to your garage. I believe only one billion persons, as opposed to our current 8 billion, worldwide would be sufficent to sustain a modern civilization and economy without ruining the environment and depleting precious natural resources. Once the population is at healthy numbers, ideally there should only be one human baby born for each and every living adult. That means a maximum of two newly-procreated children per married couple. We will all eventually die and will need one new human life to replace ours to continue our species. I think sound widespread education is the key to a solution. There was one YouTube video I watched not long ago, I have not found it yet, in which the narrator said that women and girls in developing nations need to be better educated on fertility. I agree. I also assert that men and boys as well not be ignorant on this matter. After all, over half of the new humans born in this world are in fact male.

But when you add both of the two pie halves together, you somehow come out with one pie. I'm not sure there is any mathematical expression to represent the cutting of one whole pie with a knife to yield two pie halves. You start with one whole pie and need to end up with two halves as represented by this fraction: 2/2

Trying to study science might be daunting or even humbling to some. What you thought or believed was reality or truth all along might be a cherished personal holding suddenly to become unmercifully crushed by some bearded bespectacled college professor in chemistry, biology, calculus, astronomy or physics. Did you know that when one physical thing is divided in two you have two separate objects? When you cut a pie in two, you have two objects each of which is called a pie half. In arithmetic, however, one divided by two is only one half. We got two halves of a pie when we cut it down the middle with one knife. We only got one half when we split the number one with the number two. When I was about seven, my mother gave me a 5 dollar bill to buy a loaf of bread in my hometown store. I bought the bread and came back with 4 one dollar bills and a few coins. Seeeming surprised, I told my mother that I had "more money" after buying the bread. After all, I did have more separate pieces of money after the clerk gave me change. My mother told me that notion was ridiculous. She asked me how one can end up with more money than I started with after spending the part of the five-dollar bill on something. What does "MORE money" really mean? A greater number of currency pieces or something else? You see, sometimes mathmatical logic doesn't always agree with our perceptions of the physical world. Certainly, one five dollar bill would weigh less on a scale than 4 ones and a few coins.

The universe is infinitely large. True or false?

Perhaps, then, perception is not always reality. Humans really know damned little about nature, indeed.

Space is infinite. It has no end nor beginning.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Only it's form can change. All mass is conserved in the universe. I think of time as a geometrical straight line or a number line. The line extends infinitely in either direction.

It therefore seems as pitch is slower than molasses in January at falling in drops.

It's probably true that a person falling from a tall building without a parachute doesn't stop to ponder how the earth is 'somehow reeling him in' toward his death. There are probably more serious things to think about than gravity's root cause. Speaking of natural origins and causes, there is the common question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Nobody ever factors the sperm into that question. After all, it takes two to tango. I will now ask, "Which came first: the chicken, the egg or the sperm?"

Does modern science turn a blind eye to metaphysics?

How is gravity even possible? How can one body of matter draw another body of matter, separated by a void, toward itself with no apparent material or mechanical connection between the two bodies? If I reel in a fish toward me, the fishing line is the material connection between me and the fish I'm drawing toward myself. There are no apparent strings attached between the moon or the earth but the moon somehow exerts some invisble pulling force upon our oceans to create tides. When an apple falls to the ground from a tree branch, how is the planet earth somehow "reeling in" the apple toward it? How is the existence of matter even possible? Something, logically speaking, can't arrise from absolute nothing. Every change or new existance in our universe must have a means of causation. The Big Bang did not bang itself. "Who" or "what" "pushed the figurative start button" to set off the Big Bang, if there ever was such thing as a Big Bang at all? It only seems logical to say that matter never had a beginning at all and that it has been in existance literally forever.

I'm not here to argue anything. I came to ask questions. I want to know what YOU think the answers might be. If you don't honestly know the answers then please say you don't know. I'm only seeking opinions. I focus on the human species because there is a cultural aspect of the sexes not possessed by other animals. Female dogs don't wear lipstick.

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up? I ask because my mother once remarked that this world would be a better place without male and female. She said this in response to my remark that male and female is a beautiful thing of nature. As times progress onward, the differences between male and female seem to becoming more and more confused. There are certain societal and political biases that seem to put one or the other sex at a disadvantage. Men are often given harsher sentences for the same types of crimes because judges view men as naturally more menacing than women perhaps because of the perceived muscular strength of men and that women are looked upon as naturally weaker and less competent. We still have a Girl Scouts for absolutely females only but there is no longer a male-only Boys Scouts. It seems as the male side of our species is especially becoming less relevant.

I'm not missing anything. I'm sharing my thoughts. It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? Most scientific research was the result of human thoughts and questions asked by philosophers. I'm not a professional scientist, just a human thinker. I proposed a what-if scenario here and thought some more versed in science could chime in. Perhaps my thread indeed belongs in the philosophical section. I will propose a new philosophical question here though. Why in fact is the human species composed of males and females in separate bodies? People ask questions and look to science to provide answers.

It's just a human figure of speech. Even my science teacher in high school used the term "Mother Nature" as if "she" were some sort of living person. Sometimes human behaviors might lead to the outcomes of certain things and alter the future. We can select our sex partners at will. As to how and why the particular reproductive layouts of various living species came about, I can't honestly say.

PERHAPS, NATURE'S WAY OF NOT MAKING OUR OVERPOPULATION EVEN WORSE THAN IT IS ALREADY.

It is my notion that if all humans could have babies, not just half of the species, that would pretty much double our reproductive capacity. Men can fertilize women much faster than women can bear children. Women are only about half the population within the age group of human fertility. In unisex species, reproduction rate and baby-making efficiency are measured in the female, not male, half. Think about what our world numbers might be if our species was 90% women!

Human hermaphroditism might not be a good thing after all. That would mean each and every person could have a baby. Even with male and female in separate bodies, the world is way overpopulated as it stands right now.

I wasn't trying to invalidate anything. I wanted folks here to understand that two separate individuals are involved in bringing forth young even in hermaphroditic species. For some reason, Mother Nature provided that the vertebrate (higher-level) animals be unisexual (male and female in separate bodies). Logically, I try to pick the line in the store that I perceive to get me out of the store the fastest. Mother Nature may have found it most efficient to put male and female in separate human bodies if nature has any free will or reasoning power at all. Another name for hermaphrodites are bisexuals. This term is not to be confused with the sexual orientation of being attracted to both sexes.

The hermaphroditic animal species still involve two separate parents to bring forth young (at least in earthworms) as far as I know. Female parts of plants are above male parts, so pollination (inbreeding) won't occur within the same plant merely by the law of gravity. The wind (or birds and bees) has to carry pollen from neighboring plants for genetic diversity. Most plant life is hermaphroditic as far as I know.

I dare say the hermaphroditic earthworms are quite populated worldwide. I understand it still takes two of these individuals to reproduce. Genetic diversity would still come from two separate individual earthworms which mate with one another. My theory is that if humans were also hermaphroditic and naturally able to continue their species, still two separate individuals would be in order to reproduce. A single individual entirely reproducing on its own in theory would indeed lack any genetic diversity. Here is a link (not safe for work) to a piece of artwork I made to provide you a mental picture of my notions of a hypothetical hermaphroditic human had Mother Nature otherwise gone that route or may still choose to go that route in the future before Man becomes entirely extinct should that be the fate for us. https://www.mediafire.com/view/94s6qklnc0xc3yx/concept_hermaphrodititc_human.png/file My concept hermaphroditic human (the one that never happened but might still happen in the future) is conceived by me to possibly be able to both bear and sire healthy children under normal circumstances. The trouble is that uterine female mammals generally have limited physical strength and stamina. Since each and every of my theoretical hermaphroditic humans would have childbearing capability under normal circumstances, how well might they be able to do strenuous and dangerous labors? The non-childbearing men have a physical advantage over the childbearing women and therefore men have been assigned the more dangerous and difficult work for the longest time. Modern woke societal attitudes regarding sex and gender disregard such natural differences between men and women. But I digress. How might the hormones work in a single mammal's body with both impregnating and childbearing capabilities?

Being natural hermaphrodites seems to work well for earthworms, but most other natural animal species NORMALLY have male and female in separate bodies. Is having male and female in separate bodies a practical reproductive plan for humans, mammals, birds and etc? In Man's various cultures, this separate male and female setup seems to have been the cause of a lot of social inequalities since man first picked up a stone and cast it. One such sex inequality invented by Man has been "ladies first". What are the pros and cons of having a species set up by nature as hermaphrodites as opposed to having a species divided with separate male and female individuals? What is the advantage to having human individuals divided by sex? In nature, male lions don't seem to understand the notion of 'ladies first' if you understand the pride's feeding order.