Without reproducing, how is buddhism a proper belief in a world where resources are limited?

If arahants are so weak, they will be awful slaves. Plus arahants are not supposed to be afraid by some vague threat of torture or death by some puthujjanas.

With your idea of ''viable ideology'' You seem to cling to the popular fantasy that the goal is to make all living humans happy. Since there will always be some puthujjanas around the arahants, the arahants have to live with them and the buddha never said the goal of the puthujjanas is to protect the arahants.

Let's start arguments for householders's sake::

1.)foreign people: who are they? outside nation! Then it's better you start explaining the boundaries in which an Arhant is bounded by.

2.)ideal buddhist country: yeh! There is a ideal buddhist country in my dreams whose aura is so perfect that even i-> the dreamer, remains calm. Getting back to reality, even lion wouldn't kill, drunken becomes calm, even devdutta(father of modern hinduism and aghori) learnt meditation to some extent and received compassion from buddha-- whereas he also couldn't bring any harm to any arhant.

3.)•••monks into slavery by force: Have you ever tried to know an arhant, the qualities of arhant, the respect of an arhant by consciousness.....? when an arhant says NO, no power of this universe can oppose, forget mere already-dead invader.

4.)steal their resources: Since when did arhant require any resource to depend upon?

5.)physically weak: One who is a conquerer of whole space, universe, sankharas, un-awareness, ya calling him physically weak!!!!

6.)outnumbered: Since when did arhants are less in number? Infinite amount of non-materialistic (citta-body) devas, brahm, yaksh etc. protect them.... go back to point 3 also for this.

7.) without reproducing: ya know reproduction only through a** and d***. What about reproduction through knowledge? It's amazing to know that sexual reproduction only produces those who can either survive or die, once out..... whereas knowledge-reproduction, once intiated, even if results in non-arhant, non-stream-enterer-- it continues for next birth also.

How is buddhism a proper belief?
Amazing, first know about an arhant.

when you rely on lay people to feed you and breed so they can protect you

Arhant never relies on anyone, it's for the sake of lay-people that they go for alms round, i.e. to spread dhamma, to give dhamma and to do that they require a medium, which is body. Lay ones, after receiving dhamma, helps them in their spreading of dhamma by giving them something to keep the medium(body) safe.

It's never meant to protect them, cause they are not this impermanent-medium.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I would suggest you to stand up against a wall and smash your head to force this MARA(over-possessing ignorance & defilements) get out.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

FIRST KNOW ABOUT ARHANT

(Arguments become necessary, when invader points a nude-sword at neck)

I think that according to the theory of kamma, what happens to you is the result of your karma. So taking arms and engaging in warfare or conquest is only a very short-sighted approach that might or might not protect you or give you survivals advantages. Acting on the causal level is the only way to reach true peace and safety (according to theory at least). Every person that engages in war and killing is always deeply affected, so even though they might win, there will still be a price to pay after it.

Also, every country that has been through war seems to be much weaker, poor and unstable than a country living under peace for a long time.

Reproduction is biologically necessary and only monks do not reproduce, so 99% of the population still has offspring. This would be a problem only if many peope took vows.

I’m having trouble understanding your question, I think there is some fallacious reasoning in it. In fact, if we try to follow your reasoning:

They would take the monks into slavery by force to have them work in a field and they would also steal their resources. The Buddhists are physically weak, they're outnumbered because they don't reproduce.

Then... How would have Buddhism resisted for 2500 years until today? Or also Tibet, if we refer more to a "Buddhist country"?

If everyone was a buddhist, nobody would work the fields

And yet they do.

According to the original form of Buddhism, monks don't "work the fields" and are sustained by alms-food.

I think that the existence of people who renounced worldly ambitions was a feature of Indian society in general -- see Ashrama -- not only Buddhism. You might see something like that in the West still too, i.e. a class of people who have "retired".

In later Chinese and Zen Buddhism I think there was some point in history where the State (e.g. the Emperor) decided there was too much of that -- it's difficult to tax monks, not to mention it being difficult to conscript them into your army. I think at that point the monasteries were expected to become more self-sustaining -- which lead to societies, stories, and attitudes like,

No Work, No Food

Hyakujo, the Chinese Zen master, used to labor with his pupils even at the age of eighty, trimming the gardens, cleaning the grounds, and pruning the trees.

The pupils felt sorry to see the old teacher working so hard, but they knew he would not listen to their advice to stop, so they hid away his tools.

That day the master did not eat. The next day he did not eat, nor the next. "He may be angry because we have hidden his tools," the pupils surmised. "We had better put them back."

The day they did, the teacher worked and ate the same as before. In the evening he instructed them: "No work, no food."

Your argument reminds me of what happened in Tibet last century -- i.e. the Chinese accusing the Tibetan monks (which was like a "theocracy") of being land-owners exploiting peasants, and invading.

I suspect your argument could be applied to any class of person ...

• The army expects lay people to feed them
• The politicians expect people to feed them
• The teachers expect people to feed them

... as well as to almost any "religion". So I don't see the point of your question.

At any moment I expect there are more Buddhist laypeople than there are monks, too. Your idea of Buddhists "not working" might imply that only monks are Buddhist -- you might want to read something like The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, which is addressed to laypeople, for some idea of how traditional Buddhist doctrine might inform laypeople's work and relationships etc.

Conversely I think there are (Buddhist) countries where most people (at least, most men) have been a monk, but only temporarily -- as part of like their training or education (e.g. "Temporary ordination is the norm among Thai Buddhists"). Which I find analogous to Western countries -- where a lot of people or even the majority might have gone to school or university, but only a few stay on permanently.

What is your idea of a "proper" and "viable" ideology? Do you take as exemplary a stereotypical communist doctrine -- i.e. that everybody should be peasants (working in the fields), and, in the army?

You are basically saying, buddhists are less competitive and therefore have weaker survival abilities. This is based on the theory that survival in the world of limited resources requires competition for resources.

Then you're saying, how is Buddhism a "proper belief" if it makes buddhists less fit for survival. This assumes that survival is like winning the game and death is like losing.

However, from Buddhist perspective, surviving in samsara is not better than dying. When you survive you're still caught up in samsara, which means sooner or later you will die.

Instead, Buddhists focus on finding the deathless peace called nirvana. When you have found the Deathless, surviving vs dying does not matter, it's not applicable. This is the real victory, not the fake victory inside samsara.