COP21: Cardinal says birth control may offer climate 'solution'

[LongingSoul]

The “solution” proposed for climate is to reduce the number of babies (through normally licit means).

Ergo, babies and humans are the “problem”.

As Cardinal Turkson said in his clarifying interview posted in #18, the headline was ‘more exciting than the content’. The ‘outlets’ linked that had taken issue with the interview, were ultra traditionalist sites more likely to promote the problematic extreme against nfp in responsible parenthood.

The cultures in 3rd world countries like Africa are known to reproduce ideologically as a symbol of family status and path to wealth. It happens in societies that even when the fruits of an ideology like that are no longer serving the good of the family and the good of the society… they can be so ingrained with religious or cultural value, that they no longer part of natures and Gods will which are all part of responsible reproduction.

Cardinal Turkson speaking from the African experience in this issue can likely clearly see how promoting nfp as embraced and taught as Catholic, could debunk a problematic flaw in the beliefs about the meaning and role of family in society.

 

[Thomas_White]

There’s plenty of space in the world for all of the world’s people.

From World Population Clock: 7.3 billion people

From Wikipedia: Area of Texas = 268,581 square miles

That represents a total of fewer than 27,280 people per square mile (just under that of New York City).

But there is no way the land and resources of the state of Texas could support anything remotely close to 27,280 people per square mile, and this is an instance where statistics are misleading. As one example, I could scarcely imagine what it would look like were a strong hurricane to hit along the Texas Golf Coast, but it would be in a category far beyond ‘major catastrophe’.

 

[Erich]

But there is no way the land and resources of the state of Texas could support anything remotely close to 27,280 people per square mile, and this is an instance where statistics are misleading.

The land and resources of the City of New York can’t support “anything remotely close to 27,280 people per square mile” either… but that’s about how many people live there.

 

[JimG]

The land and resources of the City of New York can’t support “anything remotely close to 27,280 people per square mile” either… but that’s about how many people live there.

Big cities with high population densities are where people like to live and work. There are many who live in NYC at a density of 27,280 person per square mile who would not consider living anywhere else!

 

[FollowChrist34]

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35040477

I agree with the Cardinal’s comments re NFP. No surprise at the BBC militancy either.
:nope:

 

[Thomas_White]

Texas is larger than New England, New York, Pennsylvania and a large part of the Midwest combined. A density of 27,280 persons per square mile throughout Texas is not a realistic proposition. It would not even be possible in the arid and mountainous regions of West Texas.

 

[Erich]

Texas is larger than New England, New York, Pennsylvania and a large part of the Midwest combined.

You’re completely missing the point of my original post… which is just that the world’s population will fit in an area the size of Texas (i.e. it doesn’t actually have to be the state of Texas, it could just as easily be in the Midwest) at a population density equivalent to that of NYC. Alternately, the world’s population will fit in an area the size of the 48 contiguous states at a population density considerably less than that of Bermuda.

Whether you (hypothetically) put everyone in Texas or spread them out over the lower 48, you still have an area the size of the rest of the world to support them. Not saying it would be ideal, just that it would be possible (i.e. an exercise in equitable resource distribution).

A density of 27,280 persons per square mile throughout Texas is not a realistic proposition. It would not even be possible in the arid and mountainous regions of West Texas.

The Weather Channel created a list of the 50 most densely populated cities in the world. It might surprise you that none of the largest cities in the U.S. made the list.

It might also surprise you to learn that most Colombians live in the mountainous western portion of the country as well as the northern coastline, with most living in or near the capital city of Bogota (elevation: 8,660 ft)… and that Bogota did make the list.

Or are you saying that the fact that these cities even exist (and the fact that no US city is included) is not a realistic proposition?

 

[skippley]

One of the most natural methods of NFP is ecological breastfeeding. No abstinence, natural birth spacing, no production needed for bottles, pacifiers, formula, and reduced production of feminine products, etc. And it’s part of God’s plan. Those American mothers who follow the Seven Standards of eco-breastfeeding average 14.5 months of no menstruation following childbirth. See www.NFPandmore.org. The Church and society needs to promote this most natural method.

 

[lynnvinc]

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35040477

Here’s a solution: More people can take vows of celibacy and perhaps become priests, monks, and nuns. And even married couples can practice celibacy during certain times for the sake of the kingdom of God. I think in the olden days it was considered a good thing for married couples to practice abstinence during Lent, of instance.

What society needs is more self-control, and the practice of self-control (for the sake of the kingdom of God), not more licentiousness. It seems the same forces at work causing global warming – namely prodigal profligacy, living way high on the hog – are the same forces behind the sexual frenzy. I think we’re so immersed in this type of lifestyle, it seems normal or okay, even good.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Hmm. I’ll have to re-read Pope Pius XII’s letter to midwives, but I don’t think climate change considerations are included as one of the grave reasons that make the practice of NFP to avoid conception licit.

 

[Genesis315]

Hmm. I’ll have to re-read Pope Pius XII’s letter to midwives, but I don’t think climate change considerations are included as one of the grave reasons that make the practice of NFP to avoid conception licit.

That address gives these:

“medical, eugenic, economic and social”

Humanae Vitae gives these:

“physical, economic, psychological and social”

Considerations of the earth’s resources, etc. generally fall under the economic and social categories. Climate problems, if they are as detrimental to the environment and human society as they are claimed to be, would certainly fall under these.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

That address gives these:

“medical, eugenic, economic and social”

Humanae Vitae gives these:

“physical, economic, psychological and social”

Considerations of the earth’s resources, etc. generally fall under the economic and social categories. Climate problems, if they are as detrimental to the environment and human society as they are claimed to be, would certainly fall under these.

Interesting, I had understood economic considerations to apply to the family’s economics, thinking “would we be able to feed this new child?” I have not seen commentaries that use economics to refer to macroeconomics. I would definitely be open to reading commentaries that include this definition.

For social, the primary example given by the priest at my parish is a situation like they have in China, where a child will be forcibly aborted if the mother is found to be with child. Or if the parents are living in a concentration camp. Again, I haven’t seen it used to say that periodic abstinence can be permitted in order to reduce a family’s carbon footprint. However, I am always willing to learn more.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Or are you saying that the fact that these cities even exist (and the fact that no US city is included) is not a realistic proposition?

It is not a realistic proposition in the long-term because population increase and the increase and/or elimination of local resources to support such condensed populations becomes unsustainable. We already see these problems in US cities even though they don’t have the largest population density. Then you have issues with the size of the human population in general. Current methods of farming and raising livestock are insufficient to sustain a growing human population forever. There just isn’t enough land area and we aren’t doing anything to address that inevitability.

 

[Genesis315]

Interesting, I had understood economic considerations to apply to the family’s economics, thinking “would we be able to feed this new child?” I have not seen commentaries that use economics to refer to macroeconomics. I would definitely be open to reading commentaries that include this definition.

For social, the primary example given by the priest at my parish is a situation like they have in China, where a child will be forcibly aborted if the mother is found to be with child. Or if the parents are living in a concentration camp. Again, I haven’t seen it used to say that periodic abstinence can be permitted in order to reduce a family’s carbon footprint. However, I am always willing to learn more.

In Paul VI’s encyclical, Populorum Progressio, he does reference responsible family planning in reference to the broader realm of economics:

37. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)

The “social” is somewhat ambiguous, but I don’t think it can be applied as narrowly as you have, as even Pius XII in the address to midwives says such indications “not rarely arise.” It’s a broader question involving the common good of one’s society as Pope Paul alludes to. Times have certainly changed since Pope Paul’s time and now population decline is instead a problem in many places, but I think the general principles remain valid that reproductive decisions cannot always be made solely on motives that lack consideration of the greater common good.

That being said, I don’t think reducing one’s carbon footprint is enough as an end in itself. The good of humanity is the end. Pope Francis, in his encyclical on environmental issues, Laudato Si, notes the pre-eminence of humanity (par.90) and the importance of the acceptance of new life (par. 120),and criticizes those that suggest simply the reduction in birth rates as a solution (par. 50). To me, taking into account the justifications for limiting births other Popes have spoken of, that means that environmental concerns would have to be tied to actual human concerns.

 

[Erich]

It is not a realistic proposition in the long-term because population increase and the increase and/or elimination of local resources to support such condensed populations becomes unsustainable. We already see these problems in US cities even though they don’t have the largest population density.

New York City has ranked as the nation’s most populous city in every census count, beginning with the first one in 1790. And, the population of the NYC metro area (currently estimated at over 20 million people) is 2.5 times that of the city itself. I don’t think there’s anyone alive today who can remember when a population of this size and density was supported entirely by local resources. Meanwhile, agricultural production all around the globe has exploded.

Thomas Malthus, an Anglican clergyman, predicted in 1798 that the world would run out of food in 1890. Of course, that didn’t happen. In fact, the overpopulation “crisis” has been both imminent and rescheduled countless times in the last two centuries.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

New York City has ranked as the nation’s most populous city in every census count, beginning with the first one in 1790. And, the population of the NYC metro area (currently estimated at over 20 million people) is 2.5 times that of the city itself. I don’t think there’s anyone alive today who can remember when a population of this size and density was supported entirely by local resources. Meanwhile, agricultural production all around the globe has exploded.

The point of unsustainability is reached when local resources are insufficient to support the local population. Humans are pretty adept at mitigating this fact with transportation networks, but this is just a vulnerability. If there is a sustained collapse in transportation or significant drop in crop yield, both reasonably within the realm of possibility, then there will be a lot of bodies in NYC and other major cities that will need burying when its over.

As for agricultural production; again, unsustainable growth. The plain and undeniable truth of the matter is that our planet does not have infinite farmable land area to support infinite population growth. Only 18% of total global land area is farmable land that isn’t already being used for that purpose (we’re currently using a land area equivalent in size to the continent of South America). The remaining 18% represents a lot of horrendous choices. Do we bulldoze the Amazon and turn it all into farmland? Do we forcibly relocate people? Over half of our planet’s land area isn’t even habitable. You can’t avoid a population problem in the long term. Our planet just doesn’t have infinite resources.

 

[Erich]

The plain and undeniable truth of the matter is that our planet does not have infinite farmable land area to support infinite population growth.

Fortunately, we won’t have infinite population growth. For one thing, residents of urban areas tend to have fewer children than people in rural areas, growing female participation in the work force has led to many women delaying or deciding against having children (or having fewer children), a longer pursuit of education also delays marriages, etc.

We’re used to thinking about a “replacement rate” of 2.1 children born per woman; only 108 (of 233, or just over 46%) have 2.1 or more children born per woman according to this link. That means 125 (of 233, or just under 54%) have fewer than 2.1 children born per woman.

Historically, no culture has ever reversed a fertility rate of 1.9 children born per woman; 93 countries (of 233, or just under 40%) are already at or below this number. It’s pretty much impossible for a culture to reverse a fertility rate of 1.3; 10 countries are already at or below this number.

What will happen is, the world’s population will peak (perhaps as early as 2050 according to some estimates), then stabilize or even decline.