J
JimG
Guest
Human beings are a renewable resource–a resource that we have squandered through contraception and abortion.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I love humans too – that’s why I don’t want to see future generations of human suffer.
Look, it’s a simple question of mathematics. No animal population can exceed the carrying capacity of its environment more than temporarily. The human carrying capacity of the earth was around one billion in 1850. Then, the discovery and industrial application of petroleum in 1859 allowed us for a while to manipulate the carrying capacity by greatly increasing agricultural output. Agriculture is overwhelmingly dependent now on cheap oil and natural gas. As these begin to decline, agricultural productivity will decline along with them, leading to famine, disease, and resource wars over for the remaining oil reserves.
Discovery of oil and gas peaked in the 1960s. Global production is set to peak now within a few years, with the Saudia Arabian Al Ghawar field and the Mexican Cantarell field already in decline. An assessment of future world oil supply and its depletion pattern shows that between 1980 and 1998 there was an 11.2 per cent increase in world crude oil production, from 59.6 to 66.9 million barrels of oil per day. Current world production rates are about 25 Gb (billion barrels) per year. A simple calculation shows that if consumption levels remain constant, world crude oil reserves, at approximately 1 trillion barrels, could be exhausted around 2040.
Without replacing this lost fossil fuel, the human population will crash back to a level that can be sustained on the annual (name removed by moderator)ut of solar energy. I believe that as Christians we must strive to minimize the suffering that this energy catastrophe portends. Avoiding having large families is one step we can take.
StAnastasia
M
Michael_David
Guest
Since numbers (math) seems to be the source of worry, here are some numbers of the wells around the globe:
Rig Count
Date October 2008
USA 1976
Latin America 403
Canada 446
Europe 101
Africa 60
Middle East 288
Far East 244
Total 3518
How can the USA have so many rigs, and planning more off shore, in Alaska, Dakota’s as well as other locations, and we get so much oil from the East? Are ours like a ‘savings account’ for when the foreign wells go dry? Or are ours doing all the agriculture, plastics, medicinal, etc… while the auto’s use is from the East?
These numbers also make me think that more is going on then meets the eye…
Rig Count
Date October 2008
USA 1976
Latin America 403
Canada 446
Europe 101
Africa 60
Middle East 288
Far East 244
Total 3518
How can the USA have so many rigs, and planning more off shore, in Alaska, Dakota’s as well as other locations, and we get so much oil from the East? Are ours like a ‘savings account’ for when the foreign wells go dry? Or are ours doing all the agriculture, plastics, medicinal, etc… while the auto’s use is from the East?
These numbers also make me think that more is going on then meets the eye…
B
Brendan
Guest
No experimentation involved. If the Earth cannot support X number of people, God will not ensoul them. Simple.
And you are correct, the final determination of how many people the Earth may support is neither mine nor yours, it belongs to God.
J
JimG
Guest
Malthus has simply been proven wrong. How do we know at any given point in history what the carrying capacity of the planet is for humans? Would anyone have thought that an area the size of Manhattan could carry its current population density? Or Mexico City? Or Tokyo?
And yet it is precisely these high density areas to which humans gravitate. They don’t want to live in Sharon Springs KS with a quite low population density. No, everybody wants to live in a high density city.
And what causes carrying capacity to increase? Increases in carrying capacity are brought about by the creativity and productivity of human beings. Which is why humans are the most important resource. A resource which we have been killing off, and no good can come of that.
And yet it is precisely these high density areas to which humans gravitate. They don’t want to live in Sharon Springs KS with a quite low population density. No, everybody wants to live in a high density city.
And what causes carrying capacity to increase? Increases in carrying capacity are brought about by the creativity and productivity of human beings. Which is why humans are the most important resource. A resource which we have been killing off, and no good can come of that.
G
Geremia
Guest
The goal is not to avoid suffering, which is hedonistic, but to do God’s will.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
To the contrary, Malthus was correct in his thinking.
It’s simple math. Animal populations (including that of Homo sapiens) are a function of food supply. My three oak trees support an average population of four squirrels. In a good year that number can go up to five or six; in a bad year to two. If I put out supplementary supply of acorns I could boost the squirrel population to dozens. Then, when I withdrew this supplement, the population would crash back to what my three oak trees can sustain.Humans have been able temporarily to increase their carrying capacity through the application of petrochemicals to agriculture. Petrochemical energy took hundreds of millions of years to store away in the earth, and we are exhausting it in a few centuries. When it is gone, the human population will inevitably respond by crashing back to the number that can be sustained by the annual (name removed by moderator)ut of energy from the sun.
If we were to embark upon a rapid program of building nuclear power plants, we could free up more natural gas – currently being burned in electric generation facilities – for agriculture. This would extend the time the earth could support a large human population.
Remember, however, that there is a Hubbert’s Peak for uranium as well; we may have only a century or two of nuclear fission power before Homo sapiens will inevitably crash back to solar-sustainable numbers.We’re running a big experiment as we close in on nine billion people by 2050, and there will probably be mass starvation by the muddle of the century if not sooner.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Weak argument. The Titanic could not keep its passengers afloat, That didn’t prevent God fro “ensouling” them. The World Trade Towers couldn’t remain standing. That didn’t prevent God from “ensouling” 3,000 victims. The Nazi “holocaust” did in six million people whom God had “ensouled.”
StAnastasia
J
JimG
Guest
Malthus predicted in 1798 that by 1890 the world would have standing room only.
I’d say he was a little mistaken.
Here it is 2009, and not only is there still standing room in Kansas, and Texas, and every other state, but sitting room and room for new houses and subdivisions as well.
For a further exploration of this, I’d recommend Fr. Frank Pavone’s article in the December 2008 issue of This Rock magazine about the real population bomb: not exploding but imploding.
I’d say he was a little mistaken.
Here it is 2009, and not only is there still standing room in Kansas, and Texas, and every other state, but sitting room and room for new houses and subdivisions as well.
For a further exploration of this, I’d recommend Fr. Frank Pavone’s article in the December 2008 issue of This Rock magazine about the real population bomb: not exploding but imploding.
B
Brendan
Guest
No, the argument is quite sound. God never said that we would not die, quite the contrary. We will all die, and the most important thing of all is to die in a state of Grace.
Your premise, and a false one, is that we, as humans, should be unwilling to accept those that God desires to create simply because there exists the possibilty of temporal suffering in our or their lives.
Sorry, that doesn’t fly.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Malthus was correct to note that all animal species are constrained by their environments and the amount of energy available to them. Space – standing room – is only partillly relevant. Food and water are the most relevant factors, and both depend upon fossil fuel energy. Without fossil fuels to cultivate, plant, harvest, transport, and process foodstuffs, and without plentiful natural gas to fertilize them and to generate electricity for pumping water, modern agriculture would be impossible. The fact that millions of people can sleep in Manhattan is interesting but not relevant, as they don’t grow their food there – they depend on the outside world.
The bottom line: the earth is finite, and therefore the human population it can support is finite.
StAnastasia
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Does that extend to God too?
The world will never be overpopulated. However, there will always be inequitable distribution of resources by the wealthy coupled to the corruption in the developing countries which need the resources.
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml
“Malthusianism, named for the early 19th century scientist Thomas Malthus, posited that having too many people in the world is the inevitable cause of many maladies, among them, hunger, starvation, disease, and war. The theory suggests that the population of the world grows exponentially while food production doesn’t, with the inevitable result of massive starvation. Not thoroughly discredited until the advent of modern farming techniques in the 20th century, Malthusianism has provided the intellectual underpinnings of all the other iterations of population theory.”
The only place populations are rising are in poorer, Third World nations. We can not eliminate this poverty by eliminating the poor.
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml
"The chief feature of the population bomb scare has been coercion. If, as proponents suggested, overpopulation was a dire threat to the entire planet, then policy makers believed that some populations must be forced to reduce their number.
Almost always, coercion comes from the hands of governments directed at their own people. "
"While coercion occurs mostly at the hands of poor governments on their own poor people, the impetus for it comes from rich western countries, chiefly the United States and those in the European Union, but also from various international institutions, most notably the United Nations. "
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That depends on your definition of “overpopulated.” If four or five billion die of starvation over the course of the next century when fossil petrochemicals become exhausted, perhaps we could say in retrospect that the earth was overpopulated with respect to resources.
A good example of how delicate the population-to-resources balance is may be afforded by the case of Tikopia, an very small island in the South Pacific, of only a couple of square kilometers (less than one square mile). Incredibly, Tikopia sustained a stable population of 1,500 humans for 3,000 years. The population had to be at ZPG, and this was achieved through infanticide and suicide by canoe (the elderly would sail off alone in a canoe to certain death).
No one relishes the Tikopian solution to population pressure, and fortunately we now have alternatives.
StAnastasia
L
liberalcatholic
Guest
Hmm… You are far from the truth on this one. I just did the math and in Minnesota there is 90,000 square miles and there are 160 acres in a mile. In 40 acre plots this adds up to about 360,000 family farms. Dividing the Population of Minnesota which is about 5 million, this would make about 3 acres per person, which is the size of a small town. If we went back to the family farm that the first Europeans had this would amount to 13 people per 40 acres=1/4 mile, sounds about right. This is no different than Europe was 200 years ago. Biblically the end will not come because of overpopulation, which we are far from, but from greed, immorality, war, and unbelief which do seem to be increasing.
So with our current technology to insulate and conserve energy, the woodlands of Minnesota would give us an abundant amount of renewable heat, for as long as the sky rains and the sun shines!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
A lot of Minnesota is lakes, not woods. And you can’t just cut down forests forever without replenishing the nutrients of the soil; you need fertilizer to replace the lost nutrients. That fertilizer comes from either fossil fuels or farm animals grazing on fields that you must subtract from the forested land growing your wood.
Furthermore, if the five million Minnesotans are spread out across the state in isolated farmsteads, how do they get to work, school, church, etc., when affordable petroleum is gone? Interesting questions.
M
Michael_David
Guest
Kinda like in the ‘good ole days’ by bringing the Church to the country… there were Churches in the middle of two farms. In fact, our Catechism class was held in the barn next door by a Nun. The Priest ‘roved’ from Church to Church back then, perhaps coming from a bigger town in the area.
And remember, with little acre’s, food was raised and canned and preserved WITHOUT electricity. This is the kind of living style your never knew, or lived, due to ‘modern’ conveniences.
PS: the country Church still is there, with one Mass on Sunday. It’s where I was Baptized. Funny to drive out in the country looking at fields and lakes and suddenly there is a Church there. I like to think that, it was hidden from satan by being in God’s country…
L
liberalcatholic
Guest
Correction, it is 10 acres per person, so 40 acres per 4 people. And don’t forget about North Dakota, South Dakota and the rest of the northwest of United States which is like 1,000 acres per person. As far as lakes, they only take up about 8.4% of land in Minnesota.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
When we go to our country place for the weekend, we attend Mass at a log cabin church. How the priest and congregation will get there when the end of affordable oil comes is anyone’s guess.
The priest lives at least ten miles down the mountain; it would be several day’s walk or a whole day by horseback to get to church. It would take us three or four hours to hike there.
StAnatasia
R
redhen
Guest
Where did you get that info? “the world’s total population is projected to increase from it’s current 6 billion to 9 billion by 2054. By this date, 90 percent of the world’s population will be living in underdeveloped countries”
United Nations Population Division (1999), *The World at Six Billion *Department of Economic and Social Affairs
United Nations Secretariat
And what happened when the Green Revolution was introduced in Africa? That’s right, more overpopulation.
That’s because fertility rates have already fallen below replacement rates in Western countries. Italy and Spain are tied at 1.2, where 2.1 babies per woman is the magic number to provide population growth. Canada falls in at 1.5, Britain at 1.8 and France is at 1.9.
Coercion doesn’t work, just look at China’s failed one child per family policy. One that has led to alarming rates of female infanticide, as the pressure there, as in most countries, is for male offspring. In China we see 106 boys per 100 girls within the governments “one-child policy” plan, and 118 boys per 100 girls outside the plan.
Jones,A (2000) Case Study:Female Infanticide
Gendercide Watch gendercide.org
Education is the key. For example: “In parts of Egypt and India, people believe that men contribute a fully formed foetus; the quality of the woman’s womb and menstrual blood determines how the foetus develops. Some Asian and African cultures define infertility as women’s inability to produce sons. Some societies consider infertile women to have been cursed.”
United Nations Population Fund (2008) Reaching Common Ground:Culture, Gender and Human Rights State of the World Population 2008
Even in the U.S. there is apparently a need for more education; "United States statistics for 1987 showed that of “5.4 million pregnancies among American women, about 3.1 million
(57 percent) were **unintended **at the time of conception. Of these, about 1.6 million were aborted”
Cohen, J (1996) Ten myths of population
Discover, April 1996 v17 n4 p42(5)
I am sorry to report that the world’s resources are in fact** finite**. You would think this was just common sense.
“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.”
Union of Concerned Scientists (1992). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html
M
Michael_David
Guest
Ah, you know what I’m talking about.
Ten miles with horse and buggy can be about an hour. On bikes, about the same or less. No oil needed.
In fact, in the 1800’s that is how it was done; oil lamps on walls for light, perhaps candles; fireplaces for warmth and light; card games for fun; after Church social that lasted for hours; maybe go to town once a week for basic staples, the rest was all gotten from the acreage and the neighbors by trade. Also, one good sized tree could do the heat and cooking for a year for our big family. I rode the work horse to the neighbors, it was fun for both of us. The thing I am getting at is, there are ways to do these things you worry about, but back then, time was not that fast, an hour horse ride meant nothing more then one’s ten minute car ride now. By the way, if such happens, what will be so ‘pressing’ that you have to get there in 5 minutes… RELAX! Work was on the acreage, not in town at the mill. You were home and at work all in one. In fact, most merchants in town had stores on the main floor and lived on the second level, again, going to work was going downstairs.
You maybe will not be able to do what you do now (and how you do it, or even as fast), but you will not need to either. This is the problem with imagining the future with the present in mind… you have to block out now to get all the blanks filled in with what will be in the future that will make some or most of the now obsolete.
I can not only remember my youth, but also remember how the folks said it was in their younger days too. Grandpa said it was so romantic to cross-country ski to Grandma’s house to date in front of the fireplace with her family playing canasta. (You may know that this card game is played with pairs/couples playing against each other). Dating has sure changed…
So you see: the future will be… and maybe not what we imagine.
- Status