Have you seen this?

[Bill_Cherry]

Why do so many of you people think overpopulation is a myth? …

Uh… Because it is?

For this to be myth you must deny that the Earth is finite.

:nope: nope
There are a lot of proponents promulgating this pretty popular preposterous proposal.(words with a “p”) But I am pretty sure that you will only hear it from folks who believe in abortion and euthanasia.(at least the majority of the time) I think the word for these folks is “MISANTHROPISTS”. And even though I generally shy away from folks who use the word “conspiracy”, it is also possible that the other proponents promulgating this pretty popular preposterous proposal (I just love saying that!) is none other than the cattle industry. Do you know why?The vast majority of the earths surface that is not water is used for (get this…) That’s right ! You guessed it! Cattle!:bigyikes: And land to grow food for cattle.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cattle

"Pasture land for cattle grazing is now the largest agricultural land use worldwide. The conversion of natural environments to pasture land has threatened native plants and animals in many places; this is especially a problem in Brazil where large areas of rainforest are being cut down for cattle pasture. Cattle naturally produce methane gas though their digestive process and, because of their large numbers, this is thought to contribute to the process of global warming. Cattle keeping also can contribute to water pollution, air pollution, and soil degradation (Clay 2004). Feral cattle, domestic cattle which have returned to the wild, are also an environmental problem in many places (ISSG 2005).

A large part of the grains, legumes, and other crops grown worldwide are used to feed cattle. Cattle keeping is also a big user of water, gasoline, and other energy sources. It has sometimes been asked if it would benefit humanity more if the cattle population was less and more of these resources were used to feed people directly."

:tiphat: Your welcome.

With apologies to my friend ‘Ridgerunner’ who I have a lot of respect for…

 

[JimG]

The earth’s most efficient, productive, renewable resource is people. The problem facing Europe right now, and many other countries soon, will be depopulation, resulting in economic decline.

Small towns in the U.S. are declining not because of overpopulation, but underpopulation. It is the densely populated areas that thrive best.

 

[Spirithound]

Why do so many of you people think overpopulation is a myth? I have heard Catholics say this before. It’s seems perfectly logical to me that the Earth is indeed overpopulated by humans and that the problem is getting worse every day. Based on the facts that the Earth is finite and that the human population grows considerably every year. Currently the population of the Earth is approaching 7 billion people, by 2050 it’s estimated there will be 10 billion people. in 1950 there weren’t even 3 billion people on the planet. Where does this overpopulation “myth” thinking come from?

Here is the divide in your reasoning. The above part of your post refers specifically to the present-day. Speculation and observation. The below part delves into logic, and it is sound logic, but it is logic without a temporal referent. I doubt there is anyone who would say that Earth could actually NEVER become overpopulated. If by a miracle we woke up tomorrow to see that 2 trillion people now lived on Earth, we would die of thirst in three days, if we didn’t murder each other first. What is going on here though, is that we disagree on whether Earth is overpopulated NOW.

Logically the earth being finite must only have the capacity for a finite number of humans to live on it. Is it not clear that the Earth is finite? Is it not clear that the human population is growing rapidly? How is this a myth? For this to be myth you must deny that the Earth is finite.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

temporal referent.

**You’re gonna make me look that up, right?

ok…gee thanks.

to define boundaries?**

 

[WillieWonka]

How may people can the planet support?

10 billion?

100 billion?

1 trillion?

100 trillion?

1 quadrillion?

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

How may people can the planet support?

**According to the video we could all have a piece of land the size of Texas. How many people are in Texas? And how many Texas’ would make up the total land mass of the planet?


**maybe I should go to bed…

 

[Charlotte408]

The question is, what do you think?

I think that if theres enough land in Texas for every family to have a house, a yard, and a mailbox I’m frekkn pissed I’m crammed in this little one bedroom apartment and paying a grip in rent…

 

[Spirithound]

"me:

temporal referent

**You’re gonna make me look that up, right?

ok…gee thanks.

to define boundaries?**

It’s like a marker in time. Like I said, I’m sure it is physically possible for the planet to become overpopulated, but I’m also pointing out that jibbler did not give any proof that it is overpopulated now.

 

[thegreypiper]

Why do so many of you people think overpopulation is a myth? I
…

“You people”? “YOU PEOPLE”?

What’s next? “Some of my best friends are Catholic”?

 

[Bill_Cherry]

It’s like a marker in time. Like I said, I’m sure it is physically possible for the planet to become overpopulated, but I’m also pointing out that jibbler did not give any proof that it is overpopulated now.

Right on:aok: Thanks!

 

[sidonius]

How may people can the planet support?

As many as God wants.

 

[WillieWonka]

WillieWonka;5542268:

How may people can the planet support?

As many as God wants.

How many is that? How do you know when population exceeds that number?

 

[sidonius]

sidonius;5544273:

How many is that? How do you know when population exceeds that number?

You are missing the point - which is that there is no hard and fast number but rather a call to all of us to be welcoming to each of our brothers and sisters, to husband our resources and to curb our appetites. I suspect that a society whose members adopt a simpler lifestyle, who behave in a moral manner could accommodate more people than societies whose members are acquisitive over-users and abusers of resources, litigious and prone to crime. Putting a number on the populace - that is the road to the total state. Ask the Chinese.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

XII PLENARY SESSION
OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20060128_social_plenary-session-2006_programme_en.html

In the 1960s and 70s, the prevailing idea was that impending overpopulation was threatening the entire planet with hunger and poverty. On that assumption, vast population control campaigns were mobilised and legitimated. Today, after three decades, it is beyond dispute that the problem is quite the opposite: populations in developed and developing countries alike are aging. The combination of low birth rates and greater longevity has grave implications for both young and old, as well as for human rights, the health of economies and the world’s experiments in self-government.

I hate just being one of the copy and paste types. But, I can not think of any thing to add.

 

[WillieWonka]

WillieWonka;5544294:

You are missing the point - which is that there is no hard and fast number but rather a call to all of us to be welcoming to each of our brothers and sisters, to husband our resources and to curb our appetites. I suspect that a society whose members adopt a simpler lifestyle, who behave in a moral manner could accommodate more people than societies whose members are acquisitive over-users and abusers of resources, litigious and prone to crime. Putting a number on the populace - that is the road to the total state. Ask the Chinese.

Societies that adopt a simpler life cannot generate and maintain the technoligy necesary to support very many. We treid that for thousands of years and lived with high child mortality, child birth death, disease, and famine. The acquisitive capitalistic society feeds more than any other society in history.

 

[WillieWonka]

XII PLENARY SESSION
OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20060128_social_plenary-session-2006_programme_en.html

In the 1960s and 70s, the prevailing idea was that impending overpopulation was threatening the entire planet with hunger and poverty. On that assumption, vast population control campaigns were mobilised and legitimated. Today, after three decades, it is beyond dispute that the problem is quite the opposite: populations in developed and developing countries alike are aging. The combination of low birth rates and greater longevity has grave implications for both young and old, as well as for human rights, the health of economies and the world’s experiments in self-government.

I hate just being one of the copy and paste types. But, I can not think of any thing to add.

Interesting. But changing demographics tell us nothing without taking into account productivity and changing health status of older cohorts.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Interesting. But changing demographics tell us nothing without taking into account productivity and changing health status of older cohorts.

I honestly do not know how to address this. Maybe I am failing to see the significance of your query. Please elaborate.

 

[WillieWonka]

I honestly do not know how to address this. Maybe I am failing to see the significance of your query. Please elaborate.

Some people tell us we are headed for trouble because the ratio of older to younger people is rising. That’s what the quote from the Vatican says. Let me make up easy numbers simply to illustrate the point.

Suppose we used to have one person over 65 for every ten people under 40.
Now, suppose we have one person over 65 for every five people under 40.

Some identify that as a problem because they say there are not enough under 40 people to support the retired population.

Regarding health status:
Well, suppose the general health of people over 65 has improved so they can support themselves. Why presume someone else needs to support them? Is 65 still a reasonable number to assume one is economically non-productive?

Regarding productivity:
Suppose the total production of people under 40 is greater than it once was. That means those five people under 40 are producing more than 10 people once did. So, even if everyone over 65 is economically non-productive, those under 40 are producing more than they once did. There is no shortage of productivity.

Are you skipping something?
Yes. We have to determine multiple productivity ratios including various age cohorts. I don’t want to go through all that, but I do hope to convey the concept.

What exactly do you mean by productivity?
Take a carpenter. (Surprise!) Suppose he once nailed everything with a hammer. Now suppose he has a pneumatic nail gun. He can produce more in the same time. Now give him those little metal gizmos for joining. He can produce even more in the same time. Now give him manufactured roof trusses. Productivity of the captenter continues to rise. Now suppose I really don’t know squat about carpentry, but maybe a carpenter gets the idea.

That doesn’t sound right:
OK. Let’s look at agriculture. In 1900 it took 40% of the population to feed us. Now it takes 2% to feed us. That is a huge increase in productivity. In 1900 people said the move from the farm to the city would mean there wouldn’t be enough farmers to feed us. They didn’t consider increases in productivity.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

Some people tell us we are headed for trouble because the ratio of older to younger people is rising. That’s what the quote from the Vatican says. Let me make up easy numbers simply to illustrate the point.

Suppose we used to have one person over 65 for every ten people under 40.
Now, suppose we have one person over 65 for every five people under 40.

Some identify that as a problem because they say there are not enough under 40 people to support the retired population.

Regarding health status:
Well, suppose the general health of people over 65 has improved so they can support themselves. Why presume someone else needs to support them? Is 65 still a reasonable number to assume one is economically non-productive?

Regarding productivity:
Suppose the total production of people under 40 is greater than it once was. That means those five people under 40 are producing more than 10 people once did. So, even if everyone over 65 is economically non-productive, those under 40 are producing more than they once did. There is no shortage of productivity.

Are you skipping something?
Yes. We have to determine multiple productivity ratios including various age cohorts. I don’t want to go through all that, but I do hope to convey the concept.

What exactly do you mean by productivity?
Take a carpenter. (Surprise!) Suppose he once nailed everything with a hammer. Now suppose he has a pneumatic nail gun. He can produce more in the same time. Now give him those little metal gizmos for joining. He can produce even more in the same time. Now give him manufactured roof trusses. Productivity of the captenter continues to rise. Now suppose I really don’t know squat about carpentry, but maybe a carpenter gets the idea.

Hey! I’m a carpenter! I get it!

That doesn’t sound right:
OK. Let’s look at agriculture. In 1900 it took 40% of the population to feed us. Now it takes 2% to feed us. That is a huge increase in productivity. In 1900 people said the move from the farm to the city would mean there wouldn’t be enough farmers to feed us. They didn’t consider increases in productivity.

**Hmmm. I see what you mean. I have to wonder though, as a (hopefully) good Catholic who tries to be obedient to the faith,… All the very learned men who surround Our Holy Father put a lot of time and study into these issues. Now, it may seem naive of me, but I believe they have our best interests at heart as a church. How is it that they arrived to the conclusion that overpopulation is a myth and that underpopulation is actually the bigger problem?. **or am I still misunderstanding you…

 

[WillieWonka]

Hey! I’m a carpenter! I get it!
**Hmmm. I see what you mean. I have to wonder though, as a (hopefully) good Catholic who tries to be obedient to the faith,… All the very learned men who surround Our Holy Father put a lot of time and study into these issues. Now, it may seem naive of me, but I believe they have our best interests at heart as a church. How is it that they arrived to the conclusion that overpopulation is a myth and that underpopulation is actually the bigger problem?. **or am I still misunderstanding you…

I can’t speak for the Vatican, nor do I know who the advisors are. However, I don’t see much economic knowledge in their documents. And this is a problem.

People embrace moral principles and strive to implement them in daily life. The recent Truth in Charity encyclical by Benedict is full of moral principles. There is nothing wrong with that.

But, there is something wrong with trying to implement those principles in an economy without having understanding, knowledge, and information about economics and the state of economies. Even worse is attempting to do that with wrong information and ideas about economics and business.

Too many people do not recognize the responsibility that attaches to attempts to implement morality in economies. They have the responsibility to be educated, knowledgable, and experienced in economics. To act without such knowledge is irresponsible and usually horribly damaging. If they are not willing to acquire such knowledge, it is better to do nothing.

An example:
In an attempt to make housing more affordable for people, the government forced banks to lower credit standards so more people could qualify. They were attempting to help people, give them housing, let them have a piece of the dream. They said it was the right thing to do. Now, how did that work? They weren’t trying to wreck the economy. They just wanted to put more people in their own houses and help lower and moderate income folks. Great moral principles, but terible execution. (Yes, the bankers told them at the time they were nuts.)