Food Price Riots Popping Up Around The World

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I lived through gas lines in the 70s. I believe, when gas lines return congress will be pressured to open up ANWAR, and the East/West coasts. Or is that an unreasonable argument?

Read some of your own posts about how long it takes to get a new oilfield on line.

Then remember what I said, “However long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take a day longer.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Vern:

I learned a long time ago that if a person takes the time to do it, he can make almost any argument for any proposition and back it up with facts and figures (and “expert” opinions) without great difficulty. Notably absent in all of the stats we’ve seen are the estimates for the untapped resources of Iraq. Some say they hold more oil than the known reserves. Also notably absent is any talk about the South China Sea, where some “experts” think there could be a half trillion barrels of oil and a quadrillion cu ft of natural gas. That’s about equal to the entire middle east. Doubtless other “experts” think there’s not enough there to oil a sewing machine. But everybody admits it’s there and undeveloped. It’s undeveloped largely because of political disputes in the area. Took me maybe ten minutes to dig out those “facts”.

And, of course, the Russians have a keen interest in claiming the arctic polar regions and are busy exploring there for…what? Nobody but perhaps the Russians, have any idea what’s there. We, of course, don’t want to disturb the polar bears any more than we want to disturb the mosquitos and rabid foxes in ANWR.

Of course, too, all of this doomsday argument assumes no changes in use at all. In the late 19th century, horses consumed a full 1/3 of all U.S. agricultural production. One could have easily projected a few years ahead (and doubtless someone did) and proved that the population simply had to come down or soon horses would be eating everything and all of Ohio would have to be dedicated solely to dumping horse manure. They would have discounted steam power as not being nearly enough to make up the needed horsepower…

It also ignores the indisputable fact that populations are going to decrease very rapidly in the most populous places (if not more) around the middle of the 21st century. The die is already cast on that.

But a person has to ask himself whether it’s worth it. It really doesn’t matter whether you spend a day or two totaling up the worldwide reserves and guesswork about the unexplored, but promising areas, and graphing the population declines, because you’re not going to convince the doomsayers.You won’t, because this thread is not really about oil, any more than it’s about food, which is the actual topic. It’s not even about population, per se. It’s about birth control and abortion, and demonstrating to all of you ignorant Catholics that the Church is a backward and unenlightened organization; one whose dicta you should reject when it comes to voting for pro-abortion candidates. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi “get it”. Why don’t you, Vern?

So, take a deep breath, Vern, and decide whether you want to do the research for the sake of this thread, understanding that it’s tangential to the real issues, which are discrediting the Catholic Church and voting the pro-abortion ticket.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern:

I learned a long time ago that if a person takes the time to do it, he can make almost any argument for any proposition and back it up with facts and figures (and “expert” opinions) without great difficulty. Notably absent in all of the stats we’ve seen are the estimates for the untapped resources of Iraq. Some say they hold more oil than the known reserves. Also notably absent is any talk about the South China Sea, where some “experts” think there could be a half trillion barrels of oil and a quadrillion cu ft of natural gas. That’s about equal to the entire middle east. Doubtless other “experts” think there’s not enough there to oil a sewing machine. But everybody admits it’s there and undeveloped. It’s undeveloped largely because of political disputes in the area. Took me maybe ten minutes to dig out those “facts”.

The point is, this is no time to sway back and forth in our seats and say “clickity-clack! clickity-clack!” or to fall down and sob, “There’s no more oil! There’s no more oil!”

No one know how much oil is left – so let’s get off our butts chop-chop and go look!

 

[Doug50]

What do you recommend as energy policy?

before a problem can be worked on it’s necessary to acknolwedge that the problem exists; we need Smalley’s Sputnik call. When Bush said “we have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil.” he was referring to what I’ve been talking about. How do I know? Because his good fiend Richard Rainwater prompted him to say it.

You think the public will acknowledge an oil crises is coming? I don’t. Look at the responses here.

If there’s a solution to oil depletion I believe it’ll come from the field of nanotechnology. But US college kids don’t have the passion to enter engineering degrees that they once had. It may be possible to replace high voltage aluminum wires usning nano wires capable of quntum conduction. Aluminum is half as efficient as copper in electrical trasmission but copper is too heavy, and costly. Nanotech has the potential to be as efficient as copper but with half the weight. The theory and experimentation is there but the solved engineering problems and applications are not. Nanotech might have the solution to longterm energy storage, too.

But when you are looking for the amount of energy to run the world the list of what energy sources that’s available gets narrowed real fast. It comes down to three things: breeder reactors, fussion, and solar. All three of those have big problems. For breeders you need at aleast 6,000 assuming you’ll still be using hydro and wind. Putting aside the weapons grade material and waste even breeders don’t last. Fission isn’t even close world-nuclear.org/info/inf66.html. And the other is solar. We can make solar cells to generate electricity and the relative landmass it’d take up to generate 20 terawatts (double the projected needs) isn’t that much; see page 10 smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia20030923.pdf
Smalley claims there isn’t enough money in the world to build those. The other problem with solar is the cells have a life of approximately 25 years. To sum it the US needs national leadership to put the problem before the american people and then to encourage colleges and students to go to work on the problem. That’s going to take money.

 

[Doug50]

Ridgerunner, with this you are not only lying but baring a false witness

"You won’t, because this thread is not really about oil, any more than it’s about food, which is the actual topic. It’s not even about population, per se. It’s about birth control and abortion, and demonstrating to all of you ignorant Catholics that the Church is a backward and unenlightened organization; one whose dicta you should reject when it comes to voting for pro-abortion candidates. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi “get it”.

BTW I am a conservative and will be voting for McCain if that means anything to you for whatever that’s worth to you. If this problem could be solved so easily as what I’m getting from you all then why haven’t we done so? Our navy acts as a police force around the world to keep oil supplies moving. How much money does the US spend for that service every year…for which the US gets no thanks yous from the other countries who benefit.

 

[ribozyme]

before a problem can be worked on it’s necessary to acknolwedge that the problem exists; we need Smalley’s Sputnik call. When Bush said “we have a serious problem. America is addicted to oil.” he was referring to what I’ve been talking about. How do I know? Because his good fiend Richard Rainwater prompted him to say it.

You think the public will acknowledge an oil crises is coming? I don’t. Look at the responses here.

Richard Rainwater did read Limits to Growth.

I do not know how humanity would deal with tihs. I thought oil would peak in the 2020s and that would give us enough time to deal with it without any stress. Unfortunately, I read some data from The Oil Drum and www.dieoff.org amd I concluded that it is likely the peak oil might happen before the end of this decade or earlier next decade. When I learned about a possible die-off (it might be averted by technological acumen), I simply acknowledged that it is probably and said to myself “we are *****d.” I did not attempt to deny it or bargain with myself.

I was numb when I first stated learning about the coming end of affordable oil, and then I went into denial: this can’t be true; God loves humanity too much to allow us to run out of cheap and ready energy. Then I went through bargaining: if we make these changes to our lifestyle, can we keep a well-fed society of 7+ billion people? Then I got moved on to anger: when the Global 2,000 report came out, and when people in the 1970s told us what would likely happen in the 21st century, why on earth did we ignore them and initiate the SUV and suburban sprawl crazes?

I always thought human ingenuity will triumph over adversity. I thought I might live to see a poverty free world after reading books such as *Citizen Cyborg *and The Singularity is Near. But in the end, I might see the collapse of a Kardashev 0.72 civilization by the end of the 2010s. Maybe in retrospect, it is probably better if my mother aborted me so I would not see the denouement of human civilization. Why should I even bother living if my prospects of hope are vitiated? (It hasn’t happened yet.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner, with this you are not only lying but baring a false witness

"You won’t, because this thread is not really about oil, any more than it’s about food, which is the actual topic. It’s not even about population, per se. It’s about birth control and abortion, and demonstrating to all of you ignorant Catholics that the Church is a backward and unenlightened organization; one whose dicta you should reject when it comes to voting for pro-abortion candidates. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi “get it”.

BTW I am a conservative and will be voting for McCain if that means anything to you for whatever that’s worth to you. If this problem could be solved so easily as what I’m getting from you all then why haven’t we done so? Our navy acts as a police force around the world to keep oil supplies moving. How much money does the US spend for that service every year…for which the US gets no thanks yous from the other countries who benefit.

Earlier posts were definitely touting “population control” as the only means of resolving the relentlessly pessimistic view you also espoused. If I included you in that, (which I did not do directly-read it-but which I will confess I suspected) then that would have been “rash judgment” on my part, not “bearing false witness” and for that I apologize.

But you had no call to call me a liar, which is a rash judgment on your part. Had you been in my presence and said that, you would be spitting teeth right now.

 

[drpmjhess]

Ridgerunner, with this you are not only lying but baring a false witness

I wouldn’t soft glove it – I would just say he is lying.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wouldn’t soft glove it – I would just say he is lying.

“Lying”??? Does Oxford not teach people to distinguish between possible overextension (one that has not yet been proved in any case, but which I was willing to grant simply on Doug’s word) and deliberate deception any better than that?

Notwithstanding the “tag team” appearance of things in this thread, and being duly chastened for possible overextension, I understand the wisdom of caution. When, however, some are so unremittingly and extraordinarily pessimistic about the future of mankind (“Olduvai” “die off” and all that, to the point the term “necromancy” comes to mind, though I refrained from saying it.) and clearly espouse population reduction (some, but not all, adding only parenthetically that they do not countenance artificial means to ensure the die off ) it is tempting to assume that one or more expostulators may, in truth, not be disclosing their agendas in full, particularly when the presentations are consistent with a particular and common point of view in every other way.

And, to that temptation I succumbed. Mea culpa.

But when one gratuitously piles on after the point is made, presumably being sufficiently educated to know the difference between a failure to adequately distinguish and a deliberate lie, the one upon whom such moral judgment is made may reasonably retain uncertainty as to whether full disclosure has actually been made in all cases.

And, let’s see, the topic is what?

 

[Doug50]

Richard Rainwater did read Limits to Growth.

I do not know how humanity would deal with tihs. I thought oil would peak in the 2020s and that would give us enough time to deal with it without any stress. Unfortunately, I read some data from The Oil Drum and www.dieoff.org amd I concluded that it is likely the peak oil might happen before the end of this decade or earlier next decade. When I learned about a possible die-off (it might be averted by technological acumen), I simply acknowledged that it is probably and said to myself “we are *****d.” I did not attempt to deny it or bargain with myself.

I always thought human ingenuity will triumph over adversity. I thought I might live to see a poverty free world after reading books such as *Citizen Cyborg *and The Singularity is Near. But in the end, I might see the collapse of a Kardashev 0.72 civilization by the end of the 2010s. Maybe in retrospect, it is probably better if my mother aborted me so I would not see the denouement of human civilization. Why should I even bother living if my prospects of hope are vitiated? (It hasn’t happened yet.)

I wouldn’t go that far. People lived happy lives even during the deprssion. You like to read I take it. Try reading “Man’s Search for Meaning”

My main thrust in this argument/debate is only to explain how important petroleum is to running modern societies, that annalysts see the point of maximum production as being either here now (the most pessimitic estimates) or between now and 20 years hince (the most optimistic estimates). That maximum could be a peak, a rollover, or an “undulating” plateau. Geopolitics, I believe, will play a big part in what happens. Globally, the same will happen to coal and natural gas in this century. Are there other energy sources beside oil, natural gas, and coal? Yes, the three I named but to institute those will take a radical redirection in how societies are run. Where petroleum is concerned, though, it isn’t just about energy. Coming back to the topic of this thread, petroleum is also about petrochemicals - pesticides and fertalizers for food production. Nuclear power plants’ electricity doesn’t make those so new chemical engineering methods will need to be instituted.

Is there any national leardership attempting to deal with this energy challenge? Very little that I can tell. If we had a presidential candidate who bluntly pointed out what I just wrote above that person would not get elected because people only want to hear about a fanciful optimistic future. In the game of national politics negativism is only directed to the opponent. Heck, just look at how those things (and myself/others) were attacked just in this thread.

On the political level has there been any attempt to deal with the challenge? Sure, here’s three:
US Senate Committee Hearing on Peak Oil
Audio streams by (see: stream/download links)

1. Senator Richard G. Lugar Opening Remarks
2. James R. Schlesinger Testimony
3. R. James Woolsey Testimony
4. Question and Answer Session
   globalpublicmedia.org/us_senate_committee_hearing_on_peak_oil

First Hearing by Congress on Understanding Peak Oil (takes a minute’s wait to begin playing):
media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/12/HouseEnergyCommitee.20051207.ram
globalpublicmedia.com/first_hearing_by_congress_on_understanding_peak_oil

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett’s (R Maryland),
video.energypolicytv.com/displaypage.php?vkey=ae62f4140325d09b9afd&channel=Congress

 

[ribozyme]

I wouldn’t go that far. People lived happy lives even during the deprssion. You like to read I take it. Try reading “Man’s Search for Meaning”

If oil runs out, would humanity acquire the means a poverty free world. I strongly yen for that. I still do not know why should I even bother living if we cannot reduce human suffering.

 

[Doug50]

Earlier posts were definitely touting “population control” as the only means of resolving the relentlessly pessimistic view you also espoused. If I included you in that, (which I did not do directly-read it-but which I will confess I suspected) then that would have been “rash judgment” on my part, not “bearing false witness” and for that I apologize.

But you had no call to call me a liar, which is a rash judgment on your part. Had you been in my presence and said that, you would be spitting teeth right now.

There is nothing wrong with couples choosing natural population control. If you don’t believe that then that is an area of Church teachings you ought to research catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

Look at your arguments here from a broader perseptive: on the one hand it seems your argument is humanity doesn’t have the self-willed capacity to altruistically control family sizes. On the surface that’s false simply because couples don’t have 10 kids anymore. That’s what I’m reading from you and on that you’re as pessimistic on human nature as it comes. OTOH when it comes to human inovations into the future human capacity to will an optismitc future is, what, near boundless? I know the bases of “Limits to Growth” for which I’m thinking you now deride the book’s premise.

And false witness is lying but one that goes beyond the self and is direct to the other. Petrus has never ever (do I need to say that more forcefully) argued for **artificial **birth control…not once. That is a false label you, Al, and Vern? have ascribed to him…and to me. Generally, I only argue to a coming energy crises. Climate change I don’t get too involved in because I haven’t spent much time looking at the professional arguments. For population it’s a fact that the world will reach a point of zero population growth. It’s up to humanity’s choices to determine how that will happen. Will it be by lack of food and starvation? Petrus believes the Vatican should be at the front of that discussion theologically as to how zero population growth comes about. Do you beg to differ with that positon?

 

[Doug50]

If oil runs out, would humanity acquire the means a poverty free world. I strongly yen for that. I still do not know why should I even bother living if we cannot reduce human suffering.

Suffering has always been a fact of life (The gospels acknowledge that scripturecatholic.com/suffering.html) Without sufferning there’s no grandure to rise above the ordinary. At some point in their life everyone is afforded the opportunity.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If oil runs out, would humanity acquire the means a poverty free world. I strongly yen for that. I still do not know why should I even bother living if we cannot reduce human suffering.

Oh good grief. Even without oil-based fertilizers we will still be able to produce enough food. We are so extremely wasteful now… we eat so much more meat that necessary, and so much land doesn’t get used at all for farming.

Do you have any real facts that show how much food could be produced without using fertilizers?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

Oh good grief. Even without oil-based fertilizers we will still be able to produce enough food. We are so extremely wasteful now… we eat so much more meat that necessary, and so much land doesn’t get used at all for farming.

Do you have any real facts that show how much food could be produced without using fertilizers?

No idea, but I think fertilizers should be qualified. “Inorganic” fertilizers should be phased out if made from oil and “organic” fertilizers should be used whenever possible.

 

[ribozyme]

Notwithstanding the “tag team” appearance of things in this thread, and being duly chastened for possible overextension, I understand the wisdom of caution. When, however, some are so unremittingly and extraordinarily pessimistic about the future of mankind (“Olduvai” “die off” and all that, to the point the term “necromancy” comes to mind, though I refrained from saying it.) and clearly espouse population reduction (some, but not all, adding only parenthetically that they do not countenance artificial means to ensure the die off ) it is tempting to assume that one or more expostulators may, in truth, not be disclosing their agendas in full, particularly when the presentations are consistent with a particular and common point of view in every other way.

Most of the population control ideas in this thread came from “Randall Parker.”

Bad Catholic Church! Bad! Bad! Bad! Your position on contraceptives is irresponsible. Change your position. Human population growth isn’t going to stop without contraceptives. Continued human population growth is the road to ruin.

Update II: Peak Oil, followed by Peak Natural Gas and Peak Coal, might drive up world food prices so high that current African population trends won’t be sustainable. But I suspect the hunger caused by a peak fossil fuels will be fairly short-lived (granted it will kill a lot of people). We’ll have several tough years until energy substitutes come on line. Necessity is a mother. Well, we are going to go up against a pretty big dose of necessity as fossil fuels supplies decline. So after a period of hunger will once again come the capacity to subsidize African food production and food supplies. We really do need to lower fertility in Africa to stop continued population growth there.

He also made the following recommendations:

The problems in Africa are not caused by socialism. If they were then Sweden would be a hell hole and East Germany would have been far poorer at the time the Berlin Wall came down.

What would help Africa:

1. An end to micronutrient deficiency. This would help brain development and raise cognitive ability. We might see a 5 to 10 IQ point rise.

1. Free birth control.

1. Pay teenage girls to stay in school and avoid pregnancy.

1. Outsource some functions of government to cut down on corruption and improve property rights protection. See if some NGOs could be paid to do the job.

futurepundit.com/archives/004914.html

Modest proposal: Use US foreign aid to offer free contraceptives and family planning classes for all the people in Haiti.

parapundit.com/archives/005093.html

If oil runs out, will human have the means to pursue a poverty free world? I do not expect this goal to be easily accomplished, but I thought it might happen in about five decades.

 

[Doug50]

Oh good grief. Even without oil-based fertilizers we will still be able to produce enough food. We are so extremely wasteful now… we eat so much more meat that necessary, and so much land doesn’t get used at all for farming.

Do you have any real facts that show how much food could be produced without using fertilizers?

Ironically there is a couple of examples to what could happen if oil supplies were to fall dramatically, Cuba and North Korea.

ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/oct1998/ao255h.pdf
With the 1989 collapse of the centrally planned economies of
Eastern Europe and the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union,
Cuba lost both its major markets and its primary source of foreign
assistance. As a result, the Cuban economy collapsed, and
the full effect of the U.S. embargo became evident. The loss of
cheap Soviet oil also triggered a Cuban energy crisis. Cuban foreign
trade fell 75 percent, and economic output fell 50 percent.
By 1994, agricultural production had fallen 54 percent from
1989 levels. Particularly hard hit were sugar and tobacco production.
Food consumption fell 36 percent. Daily caloric intake
fell from 2,908 calories per day in the 1980’s to 1,863 calories
per day in 1993. (The USDA-recommended minimum is 2,100-
2,300 calories per day.) For those most dependent on state
rations—the very old and the very young—consumption fell to
1,450 calories per day.
The Cuban Government responded to this economic crisis with a
major program of reforms. Initiating market-oriented reforms,
allowing foreign investment, and promoting a diversified export
program have set the stage for Cuba’s economic recovery…

edis.ifas.ufl.edu/TOPIC_Cubas_Food_System

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_of_Cuba
Due to the shortage of fuel and therefore severe deficiencies in the transportation sector a growing percentage of the agricultural production takes place in the so-called urban agriculture. In 2002, 35,000 acres (140 km²) of urban gardens produced 3.4 million tons of food. In Havana, 90% of the city’s fresh produce come from local urban farms and gardens. In 2003, more than 200,000 Cubans worked in the expanding urban agriculture sector

and agraculture became more maually intensive
http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/...07/060407_migrantWorkers_hLarge_2p.hlarge.jpg

North Korea hasn’t fared as well
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00EED91239F937A25756C0A960958260
North Korea, with a population of about 24 million, was the better-endowed part of the Korean Peninsula when Japan ended its occupation in 1945. The North has a wealth of minerals and other natural resources, but it has been hobbled by its rigid Communist model, by huge spending on its 1.2 million-member armed forces, and by the collapse of trading partners in the former Communist world. Now many North Korean factories are idled by lack of oil and electricity, and collective farms are returning to draft animals because there is no fuel for tractors.

home.entouch.net/dmd/ag-korea.htm
During the period after the Korean war, North Korea had developed a typical modern farming system which required the use of machinery and the extensive dependence upon fertilizer (made from petroleum). After the fall of the Soviet Union, China, not needing to compete with the USSR any longer, announced that all trade with North Korea would be settled in hard currency. No more aid. This brought on an economic collapse in the North. No longer were they able to get money to purchase oil and supplies for their farm machinery. Predictably farming began to go into a spiral. Fuel became scarce so that the farm machinery couldn’t run. By 1998, 80% of the motorized farm implement capacity of the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea (DPRK) was idled. In an attempt to sustain agriculture, Koreans engaged in agriculture rose from 25% of the population to 36% over the years after the Chinese cut off.

But much of this was futile. The land had been drained of nutrients and if sufficient yields were to be maintained fertilizer needed to be applied on a massive scale. It is estimated that North Korea’s fertilizer requirements are 700,000 metric tons which is what they manufactured in 1989. By 1998 they were only able to manufacture 18% of their need. Crop yields plummeted over this period by 60%. Thus causing severe famine throughout the land. It is estimated that without an (name removed by moderator)ut of chemical fertilizers (meaning hydrocarbon based energy (name removed by moderator)ut), there is little way that the food production can increase. The population of North Korea will decline until it reaches the level present crop yields can sustain.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

People are so fixated on oil that extreme myopia has formed.

The human race survived without oil for thousands of years and with advancing technologies, they can survive again without oil.

Of course some, who think average human is incapable of thinking for themselves, think government should solve all the problems. Guess, what, they are the problem, not the solution. The socialization of western governments is why we are in this problem. Micro-management of the economy does not work. The Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and soon Venezuela is proof positive of this.

If farmers were allowed to plant as much as they can sell, if environmental policies allowed for development of all resources (including nuclear), and if the military was allowed to do their job without interference, we would be in much better shape than we are now.

Socialism and Secular Relativism is destroying this world. Time to go on the offensive against it.

 

[ribozyme]

People are so fixated on oil that extreme myopia has formed.

The human race survived without oil for thousands of years and with advancing technologies, they can survive again without oil.

And the human race did not have such a large population for thousands of years too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is nothing wrong with couples choosing natural population control. If you don’t believe that then that is an area of Church teachings you ought to research catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

Look at your arguments here from a broader perseptive: on the one hand it seems your argument is humanity doesn’t have the self-willed capacity to altruistically control family sizes. On the surface that’s false simply because couples don’t have 10 kids anymore. That’s what I’m reading from you and on that you’re as pessimistic on human nature as it comes. OTOH when it comes to human inovations into the future human capacity to will an optismitc future is, what, near boundless? I know the bases of “Limits to Growth” for which I’m thinking you now deride the book’s premise.

And false witness is lying but one that goes beyond the self and is direct to the other. Petrus has never ever (do I need to say that more forcefully) argued for **artificial **birth control…not once. That is a false label you, Al, and Vern? have ascribed to him…and to me. Generally, I only argue to a coming energy crises. Climate change I don’t get too involved in because I haven’t spent much time looking at the professional arguments. For population it’s a fact that the world will reach a point of zero population growth. It’s up to humanity’s choices to determine how that will happen. Will it be by lack of food and starvation? Petrus believes the Vatican should be at the front of that discussion theologically as to how zero population growth comes about. Do you beg to differ with that positon?

Mr. Oil Man, I already apologized for giving the appearance of overinclusiveness in my statement. Does it entertain you to keep beating a dead horse? One peril of doing that is that people may eventually conclude that the lady doth protest too much. Incidentally, you might want to learn what bearing false witness is before you start judging others to be guilty of it. I’ll give you a hint. It requires deliberate deception. You have no moral right to judge my intent. I will not consider your calling me a liar bearing false witness in and of itself, because you probably believe your own rash judgment.

I do not expect to hear the Vatican advocate zero population growth, as I believe the Church believes in the freedom of couples to have children and leaves that decision to them; the family itself being the most proximate competent decisionmaker regarding the issue. Certainly, the Church teaches that responsibility should be exercised, but it’s an individual responsibility, not a collective one. I am confident I will never hear the Church tell couples to limit the number of their children in order to reach some given population number; and certainly not because of oil. In any event, it’s pretty much a moot issue since the most populous areas of the world are already on the road to inevitable population decline. So is some of the third world. I think the Vatican is well aware of that.

Did I say the Church condemns natural methods of birth control? I don’t believe I did, pardner, so perhaps you have suggested attribution to me of something I never said. Shall we beat on that horse awhile?

Nor did I ever say mankind has no ability to control population growth, altruistically or otherwise. Manifestly it does have that ability, for whatever reason or combination of reasons. So there again, you have attributed to me something I never said or believed.

Finally, never did I say I am pessimistic about humanity in any manner. You evidently attribute that to me, wrongly, because I do not share your view that oprimism can be equated with advocating population control due to one’s pessimism about the prospects of the human race without it.

Let’s see, what is the topic?