Arguing overpopulation?

[onenow1]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

Keyotee, the famiily unit is the key ! In the western world populations are not keeping up or are in the process as time goes on;so as false assumptions are made ! We do not see the abundance of food provided by the Lord.Our tastes may not like it but its there.Acts 10:10-16.:yup:

Opinion: "The family unit is the problem as it dwindles so do countries, with a lack of responseability to the moral obigations laid down in the ten commandments !

God Bless All.
onenow1

 

[BobCatholic]

Whenever someone is arguing for overpopulation, that indicates that there are surplus people, who should be eliminated to reduce “overpopulation”

Overpopulation advocates will NEVER admit they are part of the surplus.

NEVER.

So if someone is advocating the “overpopulation” myth, I’d ask them “so are you part of the surplus?” And if they say “no” then how do they know? They can’t answer that. And if they say “yes” then when are they committing suicide? Oh wait, all of a sudden they don’t believe in overpopulation!

 

[ValPal]

Whenever someone is arguing for overpopulation, that indicates that there are surplus people, who should be eliminated to reduce “overpopulation”

You obvious don’t understand the issue. Humans are currently living beyond the capacity of earth’s ability to support them long term. Current population levels can only exist because of intense use of stored energy resources (e.g., fossil fuels). People also don’t understand how dependent they are on these resources; not a clue.

Overpopulation advocates will NEVER admit they are part of the surplus.

NEVER.

About five billion are part of the surplus. I don’t consider myself part of the surplus because I have survival skills.

 

[BobCatholic]

You obvious don’t understand the issue. Humans are currently living beyond the capacity of earth’s ability to support them long term. Current population levels can only exist because of intense use of stored energy resources (e.g., fossil fuels). People also don’t understand how dependent they are on these resources; not a clue.

You are confusing overpopulation with a scarcity of resources to support modern lifestyles. The former is dehumanizing people, and the latter is economics.

About five billion are part of the surplus. I don’t consider myself part of the surplus because I have survival skills.

So you have dehumanized five billion people. And you say that only those with survival skills are worthy of human rights.

Nice.

 

[ValPal]

You are confusing overpopulation with a scarcity of resources to support modern lifestyles.

No I’m not. Population levels are directly linked to resources. That’s just common sense.

So you have dehumanized five billion people.

No. You have to support your argument.

And you say that only those with survival skills are worthy of human rights.

Nice.

You’re not serious, are you? Do you feel that as a Catholic it is proper to make such an outrageous assumption?

I never said that. In fact, the philosophy behind my training is to better oneself so that we may help others.

 

[RobbyS]

This is the type of nonsense that one often sees in political discourse. Just paint everyone that has a certain belief with a broad brush, which makes it easier to denigrate others.

I’m one of those people that believe that resources are not infinite (along with the scientific background to understand why). I don’t believe rapidly increasing the population or squeezing everyone into Texas is the solution. I also don’t believe the murder and other such should be the solution. I believe that the human race should start living responsibly and within its means. If that doesn’t happen, then the usual solutions that happen in nature will take it’s course: conflict,war, murder, etc. I choose to avoid that; not encourage it.

If you are a scientist then you know that the social and political means for placing people where they should be and exploiting resources equitably do not exist. Birth control is no more rational than genocide as a means of achieving that end. The eugenics notion makes some sense on the face of it, so that persons of means ought to have children while persons laking means should not. But the well-to-do inconveniently limit their families while single mothers without means have more than they should. Hitler had a system which involved coersion; Planned Parenthood uses propoganda assuming that people will behave rationally. But we don’t. So they begin to resort to more coersive laws that force institutions which resist them to do as they ask. So we have soft tyranny instead of hard. IAC. there is evidence that even without contraceptives women in a given population can lower their fertility rates. This is something like the physiological and psychological response to the danger of starvation. A kind of evolutionary response.

 

[ValPal]

If you are a scientist then you know that the social and political means for placing people where they should be and exploiting resources equitably do not exist.

I’m very aware of this. This is the what people argue should be done. Of course, when people have to actually do that, they’ll fight it like cats and dogs. People don’t want to give up their comforts.

Birth control is no more rational than genocide as a means of achieving that end.

The Church would disagree on this point. Birth control (via NFP) is permitted for just reasons. Genocide is never permitted.

IAC. there is evidence that even without contraceptives women in a given population can lower their fertility rates. This is something like the physiological and psychological response to the danger of starvation. A kind of evolutionary response.

I’m aware of this. One of the more recent examples I’ve read about was the Chinese Long March. The stress was so severe that some woman never had their period again. It might just happen too. There are major economic shocks when a resource goes from slight oversupply to slight undersupply.

 

[manualman]

Jerry Z said "
Seems they [muslims] have similar views [on contraception] from what I understand.

You might want to read up on it.

Where? The Quran obviously has nothing to say about vasectomies and birth control pills. Imams frequently disagree about the issue. Nobody speaks for Islam just like nobody speaks for protestantism. It’s a virtual free for all. Iran is an interesting example. Early on after the Shah was overthrown, the mullahs were outspoken proponants of big families and viewing children as blessings (which makes their willingness to use them as suicide bombers all the more bizarre). As time went on, the mullahs changed their tune. So which version is the real Islam? Who knows?

 

[ValPal]

Jerry Z said "
Seems they [muslims] have similar views [on contraception] from what I understand.

Where? The Quran obviously has nothing to say about vasectomies and birth control pills. Imams frequently disagree about the issue. Nobody speaks for Islam just like nobody speaks for protestantism. It’s a virtual free for all. Iran is an interesting example. Early on after the Shah was overthrown, the mullahs were outspoken proponants of big families and viewing children as blessings (which makes their willingness to use them as suicide bombers all the more bizarre). As time went on, the mullahs changed their tune. So which version is the real Islam? Who knows?

I’ll sum it up briefly. In general, contraception is permitted and they have very low abortion rates due to strict abortion laws.

 

[BobCatholic]

No I’m not. Population levels are directly linked to resources. That’s just common sense.

When you say there is “overpopulation” that means there are too many people (which means the excess needs to be eliminated) - that is dehumanization.

No. You have to support your argument.

I did. That is what overpopulation implies.

You’re not serious, are you? Do you feel that as a Catholic it is proper to make such an outrageous assumption?

I never said that. In fact, the philosophy behind my training is to better oneself so that we may help others.

I’m not making any assumptions. This is my experience with overpopulationists. They invariably want to have people killed because there are too many of them.

And invariably, the overpopulationists don’t consider themselves part of the surplus. So either they are hypocrites or don’t believe what they are preaching.

As Inigo Montoya says “That word…I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

The solution to “overpopulation” is not fewer people, but more resources. The problem is not “overpopulation” but “scarce resources” -------------> ECONOMICS

 

[ValPal]

When you say there is “overpopulation” that means there are too many people (which means the excess needs to be eliminated) - that is dehumanization.

That is untrue. Overpopulation is simply too many people in a certain area relative to the resources that support them. It is your opinion that the excess need to be eliminated and that it is dehumanization; I never said such a thing. It is a fact that nature will take its course in these situation; by people starving to death, infant death, fighting over resources, etc. Just examine isolated societies and what happens when the population reaches certain levels.

I’m not making any assumptions. This is my experience with overpopulationists. They invariably want to have people killed because there are too many of them.r

This is the opinion of extremists. You have extremist on both sides: On one side you have people that want extreme population reduction measures, and on the other side you have people that stick their head in the sand and think finite sources are infinite. Then you have the rest of us in the middle.

[quite]And invariably, the overpopulationists don’t consider themselves part of the surplus. So either they are hypocrites or don’t believe what they are preaching.

This is a pointless argument that nobody uses.

The solution to “overpopulation” is not fewer people, but more resources. The problem is not “overpopulation” but “scarce resources” -------------> ECONOMICS

That’s just flat out false. It’s been my experience that people that make such points lack a basic understanding of the issues that relate to resource use. It’s the typical western view that quantizes every issue, and completely misses the big picture.

 

[BobCatholic]

It is your opinion that the excess need to be eliminated and that it is dehumanization; I never said such a thing.

I never said that the “excess” needs to be eliminated, that is what the overpopulationists advocate. I advocate the obtaining of more resources, using the laws of economics.

This is the opinion of extremists. You have extremist on both sides: On one side you have people that want extreme population reduction measures, and on the other side you have people that stick their head in the sand and think finite sources are infinite. Then you have the rest of us in the middle.

And Overpopulationism is an extremist viewpoint.

This is a pointless argument that nobody uses.

No, it is a great argument. Hypocrisy always makes the overpopulationists LESS credible.

That’s just flat out false. It’s been my experience that people that make such points lack a basic understanding of the issues that relate to resource use. It’s the typical western view that quantizes every issue, and completely misses the big picture.

What part of “not enough goods” does not say “scarce”?

Economics is the science of determining how scarce things are to be distributed among unlimited wants.

“Overpopulationism” is a term to dehumanize the “surplus” population and calls for their elimination.

So basically Economics, something that has been around for a long time and studied in all universities, is to be rejected, but overpopulationism, something that only extremists hold to is to be accepted. Is this what you are saying?

 

[ValPal]

So basically Economics, something that has been around for a long time and studied in all universities, is to be rejected, but overpopulationism, something that only extremists hold to is to be accepted. Is this what you are saying?

I don’t frame my discussions and arguments in terms of fringe, radical extremists.

If you want to talk economics, let’s do so. Let’s bring the relevant issues into the pictures; EROEI, the Second Law of Thermodynamics…not what some extremist said and use that to throw the whole discussion out the window.

 

[BobCatholic]

I don’t frame my discussions and arguments in terms of fringe, radical extremists.

If you want to talk economics, let’s do so.

So now all of a sudden economics is not any longer “flat out false” ? What changed? Your support for Overpopulationism vanished so quickly.

 

[ValPal]

So now all of a sudden economics is not any longer “flat out false” ? What changed? Your support for Overpopulationism vanished so quickly.

If you understood the concepts of what I referred to, you would not have stated the above. Economics is directly related to and a function of resources, not the other way around. Economics cannot violate physical laws. The attempt to do so ultimately collapses the economic system.

Resources limit the economic system, just as it does the population.

 

[BobCatholic]

If you understood the concepts of what I referred to, you would not have stated the above. Economics is directly related to and a function of resources, not the other way around. Economics cannot violate physical laws. The attempt to do so ultimately collapses the economic system.

Resources limit the economic system, just as it does the population.

This sounds like what I said.

The issue is scarcity of resources, a matter of Economics — not Overpopulationism.

So what changed? First I was “flat out wrong” now you’re saying what I was saying.

 

[SeekerDude]

I’m having a bit of trouble with my WiFi, so I’m going to just jump in with my two cents now.

I was actually in a debate the other day with someone who advocated for abortion because it is green.

Now, I’m all in favor of greenness, sustainability, and I’m even pro-choice. But I found his suggestion that the reason abortions should be done is for the environment to be disgusting. Really what we need to do is get at the root causes of all these problems, such as reducing as much as possible unwanted pregnancies, switching over to renewable energy now, and making it more efficient now.

I don’t see overpopulation being a problem- when a population gets too big then people start dying off from disease, famine, thirst, etc.

Distribution of resources is the problem. Environmental degradation is the problem. I’ve seen some high numbers here, but lets put it at 10 billion as a low end estimate. So, we can now synthesize hydrocarbon fuel, so eventually oil running out won’t be a problem. However reducing the damage done by the time we get to that point will, and we’ll have to see that our renewable hydrocarbons take in as much as it puts out. Either way, in order to sustain a population of 5 billion let alone 10 billion, we will still need high technology to distribute the resources. So, it’s in our best interest to develop green energy anyway. By the time the sun runs out of energy to give us, Earth will be fried anyway. The planet becomes uninhabitable well before the sun goes red giant (gradual heating up of the sun will shift the habitable zone- Earth is screwed in about a billion years). Anyway I’m getting off topic.

But I don’t see overpopulation as a problem. Besides, we’re going to need some of them to colonize other planets.

 

[ValPal]

This sounds like what I said.

The issue is scarcity of resources, a matter of Economics — not Overpopulationism.

So what changed? First I was “flat out wrong” now you’re saying what I was saying.

Please read what I said. Without resources, there is no economics or population. Population and economics are both linked to resources. Resources are not a function (matter) of economics; economics is a function of resources, as is population.

Resources are not unlimited. And EOREI is decreases over time, meaning more and more resources must be used to get the same amount return as in the past. Combine that with an increased population, which uses up even more resources, and you’re headed for a disaster at some point in time. That’s just fundamental science; i.e., the physical laws that God wrote.

 

[BobCatholic]

Please read what I said. Without resources, there is no economics or population. Population and economics are both linked to resources. Resources are not a function (matter) of economics; economics is a function of resources, as is population.

Resources are not unlimited. And EOREI is decreases over time, meaning more and more resources must be used to get the same amount return as in the past. Combine that with an increased population, which uses up even more resources, and you’re headed for a disaster at some point in time. That’s just fundamental science; i.e., the physical laws that God wrote.

So what is to blame? Too many people? (overpopulationism) or scarce resources (economics)

Can’t blame both. The two schools of thought are mutually exclusive.

Overpopulationism always is based on dehumanizing people and usually devolves into calling for their elimination. The resource issue is never addressed, the problem is people so get rid of people so we can have more stuff. But as people die out, fewer goods are produced and are available for others, so the resource issue gets worse. The black plague showed this to be the case.

Economics talks about how scarce resources are allocated among unlimited wants.
The resource issue is addressed head on, without having to dehumanize people.

From what I see above, you seem to be talking about economics. But then you said I was “totally wrong” when I said that this is about economics so I’m getting a mixed message.

 

[ValPal]

So what is to blame? Too many people? (overpopulationism) or scarce resources (economics)

Can’t blame both. The two schools of thought are mutually exclusive.

I’m not interested in “schools of thought” and the quantization of issues which cause the failure to see the big picture.

Overpopulationism always is based on dehumanizing people and usually devolves into calling for their elimination.

In your opinion. That’s an extremist position which I give no credence to.

The resource issue is never addressed,

The resource issue is always addressed. Population levels are directly related to resources; that’s point can’t even be argued.