Atheism (Do you believe in God? If yes, then why?)

[Nile577]

existence had to exist before something could exist to define it

Yes, as humans we disclose our being as preceding cognition (to think, one must have something with which to think). Because of this, we are unable to discover the root of our being through thought. We are 'fallen-into-being' (to quote Heidegger). However, until consciousness (probably through intuition) discloses its own ontological makeup to itself, defining the concept of 'existence,' I hold that it doesn't exist and it would be impossible to speak or think of it at all.

The meaning behind the word 'existence' was created by consciousness. Language and thought arise in consciousness. Remove consciousness and you would also remove them. Without consciousness, everything you think you 'mean' when you use the word 'existence' would not be, including your argument that it would be 'regardless' (the notions of 'argument' 'regardless' and 'being' would have no meaning). Nothing you can think would BE. All modes of thought, argument and definition would be impossible. The notion of 'impossible' would be impossible. This inexpressable, impossible impossibly is outside of human reason and may as well be called God. This is the God of pantheism.

 

[Seditious]

I was convinced that God created the world. I think he created the world because how else did this world... get created. I mean mountains erode, water causes depths to go lower, and air helps cause clouds and of course plays a factor in temperature but what created the driving forces to this. Only something that can create. Even more, animals. How else can animals be made.

But this is what I think, I know y'all well have contradicting veiws but yes I believe in him.

are you being funny here? I think nothing would be a greater addition to your life than investing the time to read Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene.' I promise you it will be the best use of however much time it takes you to read it. (I'm a slow ass reader, I dunno about you, so I don't recommend lengthy reading which isn't worth it)

 

[Seditious]

The meaning behind the word 'existence' was created by consciousness. Language and thought arise in consciousness. Remove consciousness and you would also remove them. Without consciousness, everything you think you 'mean' when you use the word 'existence' would not be, including your argument that it would be 'regardless' (the notions of 'argument' 'regardless' and 'being' would have no meaning). Nothing you can think would BE. All modes of thought, argument and definition would be impossible.

a tree may not make a sound if no one is around to hear it, but the tree is still there.

I must say you're the first person I've ever met to defend solipsism.

are you saying if every conscious thing was squashed by the implosion of the universe its in that this universe which has squished down (perhaps to explode into a new universe, who knows) doesn't exist anymore? where did it go? and how could consciousness come back into existence if there is no existence for it to come into?

 

[Nile577]

a tree may not make a sound if no one is around to hear it, but the tree is still there.

I must say you're the first person I've ever met to defend solipsism.

are you saying if every conscious thing was squashed by the implosion of the universe its in that this universe which has squished down (perhaps to explode into a new universe, who knows) doesn't exist anymore? where did it go? and how could consciousness come back into existence if there is no existence for it to come into?

All of these arguments are created in thought. Removing consciousness removes thought and hence all of its mechanisms, disclosures ideas and inferences. The lexicon of human language, meaning and cognition would be nullified.

I will argue that the tree most definitely doesn't make a noise and in many ways doesn't exist (except perhaps through elaborately subtle disclosures disconnected with it). If you were to entirely remove consciousness from the ALL then yes, the 'universe' would cease to 'exist.'

I am not a solipsist in that I believe there would 'BE' something without consciousness. That something (everything), however would be God: unknowable, unthinkable and beyond the horizon of human comprehension. Our consciousness discloses the truly mystic into the realm of the pre-disclosed World.

'God' ------------------> Consciousness------------------->World('existence')


Side Note: The objection you make about existence preceding consciousness is, particularly in regards to human beings, a simple but important one and I need to think carefully whether the refutation I provided in my previous post is adequate - I think it is, but I might well be wrong here. I am very grateful to you for voicing this objection.

 

[Seditious]

quote isn't working for some reason

"All of these arguments are created in thought. Removing consciousness removes thought and hence all of its mechanisms, discloures ideas and inferences."

whatever consciousness is removed from is existence.

 

[Nile577]

quote isn't working for some reason

"All of these arguments are created in thought. Removing consciousness removes thought and hence all of its mechanisms, discloures ideas and inferences."

whatever consciousness is removed from is existence.

We will get into semantics here because the terms I need are not expressible in human thought or language. It would not be that consciousness was 'removed,' or 'destroyed,' it would simply be its utter nullification. The process is unthinkable. If you were to replace 'existence' with 'divinty,' I would on some level agree with your statement but it manifestly could not BE existence because your understanding of existence comes from consciousness (including your understanding that in order to be conscious one must already exist).

On a wider level, without consciousness, simple terms such as 'it' would have no meaning. There would be no distinction of 'things.' The process of rational thought and reason would be nullified. All that would be, would be 'God' (The 'ALL'). I find it awe inspiring to try to think about it as a concept.

Art & Poetry ontologically disclose the pantheistic God in subtle and metaphorical ways. Human consciousness is a temporal seat, through which is disclosed aspects of the 'divine' ALL.

 

[Seditious]

I will argue that the tree most definitely doesn't make a noise and in many ways doesn't exist (except perhaps through elaborately subtle disclosures disconnected with it). If you were to entirely remove consciousness from the ALL then yes, the 'universe' would cease to 'exist.'

well noise is our ear's representation of certain motion. the tree does make that wave motion whether or not there are ears (or a noise-activated microphone) near by to capture it 'as sound.'---but if you believe the whole butterfly effect thing then the motion of sound even if not heard has wave consequences, so it exists as something we can't call 'sound' but if we had sound it certainly would be sound.

I am not a solipsist in that I believe there would 'BE' something without consciousness. That something (everything), however would be God: unknowable, unthinkable and beyond the horizon of human comprehension. Our consciousness discloses the truly mystic into the realm of the pre-disclosed World.

yeh, that's what I'm thinking in answer to the objection you said i made.

Side Note: The objection you make about existence preceding consciousness is, particularly in regards to human beings, a simple but important one and I need to think carefully whether the refutation I provided in my previous post is adequate - I think it is, but I might well be wrong here. I am very grateful to you for voicing this objection.

I think that objection can be overcome by simply saying consciousness isn't merely a human matter --- I'm not saying 'god' but obviously its something god-like, something like deism, or ya know what I mean, even if consciousness was just as fundamental as time, it doesn't have to be of an agency or intention, maybe our scope of what consciousness is just fit towards our experience of it, so I think that refutes an idea like this.

I see space and time as fundamental but I'm still not sure about this consciousness matter in the necessity of existence (which human reasoning demands). if consciousness is something, then it has to 'exist' so consciousness can't precede existence, but of course the reason I'm not sure of my position here is because as time and space are necessary/coextensive, perhaps consciousness too I need to say is---which means, 'consciousness exists' but it existed from the moment everything existed' meaning perhaps 'consciousness always existed' as time and space always existed (space being not this universe but the concept/place for dimention and matter itself in which things can exist, such as this universe).

I'm not sure if its adequate to say existence precedes consciousness if I can't say existence precedes time (since the process of coming into existence would need time, time can't have been created, creation depends on time itself in which to occur, which is why I say it was a necessary existence). The best I can say right now is consciousness and existence existed always, I know I'm repeating myself, i really should sleep and stop buggin here

I just keep thinking surely it isn't a fallacy to generalise this notion----before you were born you were not conscious, but you accept the myth that there was a thing called 'history,' that you aren't a brain in a vat where everything you know as your life is a projection. If you believe in history, if you believe things existed before you had consciousness, before you existed, surely you can imagine 'before the ape had consciousness'... 'before the first single cell'.. and go backwards until it makes no sense to say 'well if billions of years in this universe could work fine before consciousness was in it, why must we imagine in that which is far larger than a universe---existence itself, needed consciousness in it from the start, rather than that it all existed and was in motion for a long time after which consciousness came about and came to know all that which has happened in the time in which it didn't exist---it seems weird to me to say 'all that exists began when adam was born' and look at a star and determine its age is millions of years older than the homo sapian, and say 'well, a half dying star was spontaneously formed in the moment adam was born from God' (or whatever analogy you have for a beginning of consciousness as we know it).

If you think the world (earth and whatnot) existed before your consciousness (you) did, why do you think consciousness of anyone/thing (consciousness itself) was needed for things to exist (for existence itself)?
I'm not talking semantics- existence, being, actuality, time in which consciousness flowed---that is what i mean by existence, and consciousness couldn't precede that (for nothing can exist outside existence, for to exist is to be in existence), so why imagine it was co-created when in our best example it wasn't? in other words I guess I'm asking why is 'all that exists,' why is 'time itself and space itself' dependent on consciousness not 'to be known as existence,' 'to be known to exist,' 'to be labelled existence,' but actually 'to be that in which things could be said to exist once consciousness existed to say "things exist"...'?

I think that's about as much as I can articulate my concerns/confusion here, hopefully we can make some headway cos I'd really like to have a degree of certainty about this matter one way or the other.

 

[Nile577]

Very briefly, I will argue that Space & Time are disclosures of consciousness, and do not have any objective/empirical existence (the Kantian Transcendental Aesthetic is of interest here). I'll try and comment on much of what you say later.

I must sleep now but I will replace this post with something better when I have time. Sincerest thanks for discussing this matter in some depth, it's exactly 'where I am' in terms of my own philosophical thoughts at the moment. I too would love to reach a point of reasonable certainty in the discussion.

 

[Seditious]

If you were to replace 'existence' with 'divinty,' I would on some level agree with your statement but it manifestly could not BE existence because your understanding of existence comes from consciousness

here it sounds like you're talking about 'existence' as a synonym for 'experience' or something equally perceptual or subjective.

our experience of consciousness is indeed non-existent, it exists only in our mind, as the imaginary friend is 'experienced' and so 'exists' to that crazy person, but were he to die the imaginary friend would not exist. but that isn't about things that exist, they're only about things which are perceived and could be perceived, as exampled, without even having existence independently.

I'm speaking of existence as the widest concept possible, some people call it 'being.' - (from one glossary.. "being: the most basic and pervasive constituent of reality, without which nothing could exist") that's what I use existence as.

reality, our perception of what reality is would indeed not exist without us to perceive it, as sound wouldn't exist as an audible thing without such things as ears...but the wave motion of sound would exist, just as the actual objective reality would existe ven without our interpretation of it (as an alien could have played a TV, and radio waves would have existed long before we discovered transmitters and ways of detecting them (since our person has no sense of them as we sense color and the like) so if radio waves exist without radios, color would exist before the eye was formed (this is of course the evolutionary epistemology argument --- why would the eye evolve to see color if color did not exist to be seen beforehand... imagine a stomach evolving to digest food in a world where eating didn't exist, it makes no sense). 'why would consciousness evolve if there was nothing existing to be conscious of?' would be the equivalent. if everything else about us evolved and fits some preexisting thing which can be known by traits of ours (like eyes) why would our trait of the mind, consciousness, have come beforehand, and humans have grown out of consciousness or some such thing.

ethics don't exist---kill all humans and there are no ethics. but if you gouge out all the eyes, color will still exist when the next generation are born, just as if you kill everyone who is conscious (Even god or whatever---everything) there will still be a place in which for conscious things to be created again.

that's my argument at least. *takes a deep breath, finally ready for sleep*

 

[Seditious]

Very briefly, I will argue that Space & Time are disclosures of consciousness, and do not have any objective/empirical existence (the Kantian Transcendental Aesthetic is of interest here). I'll try and comment on much of what you say later.

I must sleep now but I will replace this post with something better when I have time. Sincerest thanks for discussing this matter in some depth, it's exactly 'where I am' in terms of my own philosophical thoughts at the moment. I too would love to reach a point of reasonable certainty in the discussion.

I'm not sure if you'll wake up before me (I'm lazy, so probably ) but if you do, could you also explain your explanation of consciousness without time?

I mean, for instance I see consciousness as something which flows through time, consciousness is something we experience in time. I'm not sure how to speak of consciousness creating time, because to me for something to not exist and then for it to exist is to suggest a timeline, so time itself had to be there, I don't comprehend how consciousness is motionless (not in 'space' but no motion forward or backwards in time--having no time in which to have thought, or sight, or processing anything 'consciously known.'), perhaps that's cos I'm so blinded by my own idea, so I welcome you to explain it every which way you want to however long it is, cos I'm guessing it'll be the kind of thing which will take more than one articulation for me to understand.

have a good sleep

 

[judas69]

This direction is good .. I'll have to read through everything (just skimmed) but I agree with you, time and space have always been a necessity for action and movement in my view and fundamentally inseparable, though some believe differently (ie Ivan Bentov).

 

[Norsemaiden]

Please what?



"Helping" people does nothing to improve the planet, it is not the unfortunate that need helping, it is the whole of society. To aid an unfortunate individual does nothing to aid the whole, does nothing to prevent forests from being leveled, polution from being spread across the planet, the destruction of all value and meaning. We place too much importance on the individual, while neglecting and destroying the whole. Implanting an idea, a true value, into the minds of people, is a far greater action than giving a starving man a loaf of bread. Instead of just "helping" people, we should be helping them help themselves, and help the whole. I have nothing against charity or helping in such a way, but the vast majority of the time, it accomplishes nothing.

I totally agree that helping people does nothing to improve the plante. And aiding unfortunate individuals has actually done a hell of a lot to cause all the environmental problems. There are billions of people alive today who are only there because of the charity of the West. Charity is responsible far more for misery in the world than it is for happiness.
Famines are far worse in the third world simply because of previous attempts to feed the starving. Instead of staying at a sustainable population, they grew and suffer far worse. Eventually they simply can't be saved and more will die than if we had just let the original famine take its oourse all that time ago - as well as the fact the ecology would have been best protected by the humanitarian idiots keeping their resources to themselves. And of course mass immigration of refugees to the west is caused by all this too.

 

[derbeder]

Charity is responsible far more for misery in the world than it is for happiness. Famines are far worse in the third world simply because of previous attempts to feed the starving. Instead of staying at a sustainable population, they grew and suffer far worse.

Population growth in the third world countries is one of the biggest problems in the world now, but the right way to solve the problem can't be by letting the suffering people die. What we need to do urgently is to somehow stop or at least control the population growth so that more people don't suffer in the future. Letting the people die is not the only way of doing that.

Eventually they simply can't be saved and more will die than if we had just let the original famine take its oourse all that time ago

People can be helped, even if not everyone can be ultimately saved. Also, there is reason to think that with more help, much more people can be saved.

- as well as the fact the ecology would have been best protected by the humanitarian idiots keeping their resources to themselves. And of course mass immigration of refugees to the west is caused by all this too.

There is very little direct damage done to the environment as a result of charity compared to much else in the world. The only damage that can be done is due to the population being kept at a high level in those areas. But still, the rest of world population in richer countries cause more damage to the environment with the resources that they keep to themselves.

 

[derbeder]

ethics don't exist---kill all humans and there are no ethics. but if you gouge out all the eyes, color will still exist when the next generation are born, just as if you kill everyone who is conscious (Even god or whatever---everything) there will still be a place in which for conscious things to be created again.

actually, there are reasons to think that sensible qualities (also called secondary qualities) like color, sound etc. depend for their existence partly on human beings (and partly on the objects which appear to have the qualities). primary qualities of objects such as shape and motion are however commonly thought to be indepedent of human beings. it would be safer during the course of the considerations about moral principles to avoid using the example of color, and go for shape or another uncontroversially (barring idealism, that is) primary quality.

saying that if there are no humans, there are no moral truths does not amount to saying that moral truths don't exist. the only conclusion that we can draw so far is that moral truths depend for their existence on human beings. that moral principles depend on humans for their existence does not mean that they depend on humans for their content. we may have no say about what the correct principles are, nevertheless it could be that whatever the correct principles are, they only exist when we do.

it is also important to realize that the dependence of moral principles on human beings for their existence does not mean that they have no claim on human beings. the question of what, if anything, moral principles ontologically depend on is logically independent of the question about whether or not (when those principles do exist) we are obliged to abide by them. if moral principles did not exist, then we would have no real moral obligations, but it seems possible that moral principles depend for their existence on human beings and still we have obligations to act by them.

we need arguments to connect theses about
1. the existence of moral principles
2. the ontological dependence of the principles on something
3. the dependence of the content of the principles on something
4. our obligations

 

[derbeder]

The meaning behind the word 'existence' was created by consciousness. Language and thought arise in consciousness. Remove consciousness and you would also remove them. Without consciousness, everything you think you 'mean' when you use the word 'existence' would not be, including your argument that it would be 'regardless' (the notions of 'argument' 'regardless' and 'being' would have no meaning). Nothing you can think would BE. All modes of thought, argument and definition would be impossible. The notion of 'impossible' would be impossible. This inexpressable, impossible impossibly is outside of human reason and may as well be called God. This is the God of pantheism.

We can think of two possible ways the world could be:
1. The expression 'existence' does not have any meaning. There are no human beings around, but still there exist all sort of objects in the world (eg. mountains, the sun etc.)
2. There exists nothing.

It is an interesting question whether the latter is a genuine metaphysical possibility, and to answer it we have to go into considerations about necessary existence. A metaphysical possibility is a possibility about how things might be. As such it is different from what is called an "epistemic possibility". An epistemic possibility relative to a knower and concerns what is consistent with what he knows. When I say "John might come", I could either mean this in the metaphysical sense or in the epistemic sense, i.e. I could mean that there is a way things could be in which John comes or I could mean that for all I know, John ends up coming. The two can easily get confused. We are here focusing on metaphysical possibilities, not epistemic ones.

If everything contingently exists (i.e. given any object, it is not necessary that it exists), then, given some independently plausible principles, it appears that there is a possibility according to which nothing exists. However, the thesis that everything is contingent is not all that plausible. If objects such as numbers, properties and propositions are really abstract objects, then it seems plausible to take them to be necessarily existing. In that case, there is no possibility in which nothing exists. Necessarily existing object will exist according to any metaphysical possibility.

Our main question is whether or not the first possibility is equivalent to the second. First of all, sentence (1) appears to describe a possibility that is different from that described by sentence (2). Even if we are not to trust appearances here, there are other considerations that can bear on the issue. Perhaps the most important one is that whether or not (2) describes a genuine possibility depends on questions about necessary existence, but whether or not (1) describes a genuine possibility does not depend on any thesis about necessarily existing objects. This is a good additional, and independent, reason to think those two possibilities distinct.

edit: Here is why my remarks are relevant to Nile577's post in case it wasn't clear. If (1) and (2) describe different possibilities, there can exist objects even when there are no conscious beings. Nile557 appears to suggest that

(3) it is necessary that if there are no conscious beings, then there are no objects at all.

But if (1) is a possibility, then the embedded conditional ("if there are no conscious beings, then there are no objects at all" is possibly false, hence the modal claim (3) is false.

 

[Έρεβος]

Yes, as humans we disclose our being as preceding cognition (to think, one must have something with which to think). Because of this, we are unable to discover the root of our being through thought. We are 'fallen-into-being' (to quote Heidegger). However, until consciousness (probably through intuition) discloses its own ontological makeup to itself, defining the concept of 'existence,' I hold that it doesn't exist and it would be impossible to speak or think of it at all.

The meaning behind the word 'existence' was created by consciousness. Language and thought arise in consciousness. Remove consciousness and you would also remove them. Without consciousness, everything you think you 'mean' when you use the word 'existence' would not be, including your argument that it would be 'regardless' (the notions of 'argument' 'regardless' and 'being' would have no meaning). Nothing you can think would BE. All modes of thought, argument and definition would be impossible. The notion of 'impossible' would be impossible. This inexpressable, impossible impossibly is outside of human reason and may as well be called God. This is the God of pantheism.

Summing up your point:
If a tree falls with no one there to hear it, did that tree falling make a noise? No.

edit: Wait . . . that analogy was already covered. *must read everything before posting*

Anyway, I agree fully with [I think] everything you said.

 

[Έρεβος]

Population growth in the third world countries is one of the biggest problems in the world now, but the right way to solve the problem can't be by letting the suffering people die. What we need to do urgently is to somehow stop or at least control the population growth so that more people don't suffer in the future. Letting the people die is not the only way of doing that.

What is wrong with letting people die? Is death such a horrible thing? All humans die eventually, it is the natural order. Certain circumstances must naturally bring about death, overpopulation being one of them. Destroying the natural mechanism of starvation and the like, in overpopulation, is the cause of our huge problem with overpopulation. They should die, need to die, or a greater "evil" is caused. Our idiotic sense of morality is destroying this planet.

People can be helped, even if not everyone can be ultimately saved. Also, there is reason to think that with more help, much more people can be saved.

Why do they need to be "helped"? Currently, on this planet, the ending of lives does alot more good than saving of those lives. It is "unfair" yes, wow, life is "unfair". Unfortunate individuals must die, for the natural cycle to work. We are only causing more of this by "helping".

There is very little direct damage done to the environment as a result of charity compared to much else in the world. The only damage that can be done is due to the population being kept at a high level in those areas. But still, the rest of world population in richer countries cause more damage to the environment with the resources that they keep to themselves.

Direct damage? Indirect damage has the same effect, so why does it matter? It is not the cause that matters, it is the effect of that cause. Charity to these countries is worsening overpopulation, hence only creating more problems. We are destroying key, vital natural mechanisms by doing this. Again, our pathetic sense of "morality" is one of the worst things to ever be rooted into society, to ever stricken this planet.

 

[Έρεβος]

Well if you can prove Mother Teresa was a slave instead of a free, loving and caring individual who liked to help people, go ahead. If not, you should prove varg's ideologies are better than Mother Teresa's.

Varg's ideologies are a thousand times better than Mother Teresa's. If used they would do more good for this planet than anything Mother Teresa could have have done.

Lets see, a couple of his ideologies:
-Nationalism: Lack of nationalism, and practice of integration, is destroying the entire world's cultural integrity.
-Odalism: Devotion to the ways of the past, the ways that worked and put true meaning into life. The ways that did not pollute and destroy this planet.
-Ecofascism: Forcing all individuals to respect nature, regulation of birthrate and the like to ensure no overpopulation. The only way to truly fix the huge problem we have with overpopulation.

Compared to Mother Teresa:
-Save the Starving: Contributes to overpopulation, only causing more starving and death.
-Help all "unfortunate": Destroys survival of the fittest, a key natural mechanism that is vital to a species improvement.
-Christian Values: Destroys all true value with a code of linear absolute morals. Causes mass greed and cultural destruction.

And of course you have to have some measurement device to prove Varg is more effective, like hmmm, have any of his ideologies worked in RL? How many people support his thinking? Prove to me the love Teresa spread is worse than Varg's hate.

All of them work, ignorant individuals like you simply prevent them from being put into effect. Varg's hate? You obviously know little of what you speak.

Tell me how the catholic church is the most disgusting organization in the planet? You mean the sudanese government with their genocides are any better? Or the islamo facist organizations bent on killing more than just americans? Or the SS faction of the Nazi party? Please show me how the church is so evil, and how they have completly destroyed your life and the entire world you live in. Im sure there are a few million Jews, Africans, women, Chinese, Mexicans, and about a 2 billion other people who would disagree.

Yes, the sudanese gov't is better. Yes, the islamic fascist organizations are better [not by much, but still better]. The Nazi party is VERY MUCH better. The very fact that there are 2 BILLION people that would disagree proves past of what I say.

Reasons the catholic church is such a disgust:
The church has commited some of the most horrid atrocities in world history. Examples: Crusades, Inquisitions, European Witch Hunts. Also, christianity as a whole has been the most disgustingly horrid force to ever plague this planet. It creates mass greed, disrespect for nature, and ignorance. It turns values that once had meaning into hollow shells. It destroys culture and diversity. And basically: It is flawed and faulty to the core. The catholic church does nothing good, and as a body of christianity with many followers, ALOT bad. Catholic parents are expected to bring their children up in the faith, which is an infringement of a base natural right. It also converts many with its coersive nature. The reason the catholic church is the most disgusting single organization on this planet, is that it is the largest single judeo-christian organization on this planet, and it is plagued with hiprocrisy and corruption.

And im just saying you are prolly a rebellous young lad who is prolly just trying to piss ppl off, most people, who have more money, friends, and probably better education/life would most likely disagree. You probably just think you have figured out this rare and obscure mystery to life, and that the whole world is blind, but prolly you are wrong...

Okay, you're absolutely right! You've turned my world upside down with these statements, I'm shocked, amazed. I think I'll go jump off a bridge now, thank you so much for your insight into my existance.

You are a fool.

 

[MetalBooger]

Hmm, you still havent shown any evidence that your way is better, at least my way has been proven.

No one has the right to answer the "problem" of overpopulation, there is no wise man on this matter, and each person has the same right to life as anyone else. And if the world gets fucked up, who cares, dont be a emo little puss.

 

[Blowtus]

Lets see, a couple of his ideologies:
-Nationalism: Lack of nationalism, and practice of integration, is destroying the entire world's cultural integrity.
-Odalism: Devotion to the ways of the past, the ways that worked and put true meaning into life. The ways that did not pollute and destroy this planet.
-Ecofascism: Forcing all individuals to respect nature, regulation of birthrate and the like to ensure no overpopulation. The only way to truly fix the huge problem we have with overpopulation.

Any evidence for any of these? What is 'true meaning'? The ways of the past have led to where we are at the present. To me, there seem to be a number of ways to 'fix' the 'problem' of overpopulation - just depends on how you want it fixed.