Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linnyo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritMeadow said:
uhuh…you’re forgetting the resources to feed, house, school, medicate, recreate, all those people. Your looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
Click to expand...
And you’re forgetting…
  1. The rest of the face of the earth. Double, no tripple the space available and you’re still only in the U.S. Think we might be able to grow some crops on the other continents?
  2. That we can build UP as well.
  3. The efficiency brought about by proximity.
The earth is NOT overpopulated. You’re looking at the wrong end of a myopic eye.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
SpiritMeadow

My point was that the earth is a big place and God has provided, and will continue to provide.
 
D317 said:
SpiritMeadow

My point was that the earth is a big place and God has provided, and will continue to provide.
Click to expand...
Large or small families, God only provides so much in certain places. People these days love moving to Arizona. There’s only so much water to go around in the desert. People have to be mindful of the resources that God provides when they choose where to live.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I understand the condundrum that has occurred in the area of contraception, abortion, marriage, etc, but still its no reason to deride the truth. We cannot go on like this forever. We are called upon to be good stewards of the planet as well as “multiply”. I doubt that God meant multiply to override all other statements he made.
Click to expand...
With world population growth near negative, the debate on how to curb it has become moot.

The Church does not teach us to multiply irresponsibly either. We are only called to respect life.

All taken in, the problem we now face is not bursting population but managing an aging population caused by declining birth rate. For example in Europe, there is not enough attendant to clean up the toilets of all retirement homes.
 
Chancellare said:
With world population growth near negative, the debate on how to curb it has become moot.

The Church does not teach us to multiply irresponsibly either. We are only called to respect life.

All taken in, the problem we now face is not bursting population but managing an aging population caused by declining birth rate. For example in Europe, there is not enough attendant to clean up the toilets of all retirement homes.
Click to expand...
Exactly! The “developed” nations of the world are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, literally. The Scandanavian countries are facing replacement by immigrant moslems, as are Germany and Italy. France will contain no Frenchmen by the end of the century if the present trend continues, replace by moslem immigrants. Welcome to Islam, Europe. Who will replace us, America? Guess.
 
It would be best, I think, to let everyone have kids and let God sort it out. We can’t engineer everything, you know. And if we can’t fix an apparent problem without recourse to objective evil (like contraception and abortion and genocide), then we must leave it in God’s hands.
SpiritMeadow said:
I fail to see why it is laughable. It’s certainly nothing new. It’s long been known that the planet cannot sustain a continuing rising population along with a decrease in fossil fuels.

The fact that its tied to “one’s impact on the environment” is a bit new, but the basic argument has been around a good while.

I understand the condundrum that has occurred in the area of contraception, abortion, marriage, etc, but still its no reason to deride the truth. We cannot go on like this forever. We are called upon to be good stewards of the planet as well as “multiply”. I doubt that God meant multiply to override all other statements he made.
Click to expand...
 
Linnyo said:
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1752235.ece

It appears that larger families are an eco-hazard! This article is laughable but apparently taken seriously by some!
Click to expand...
In many western urbanized cultures, more than 2 children is considered ‘large family’ (hence, an “eco-crime”)
But in many agriculture-based places(less populated), a family of 5 makes a small farming team.
Who has the moral high grounds to say that the other is an eco-crime?
 
What’s the point in saving the planet if there is no one left to save it for?
 
My theory is: let those who believe in contraception and abortion people kill themselves off. 🤷
 
PatienceAndLove said:
My theory is: let those who believe in contraception and abortion people kill themselves off. 🤷
Click to expand...
I agree except for the abortion thing. Abortion is actually killing a human life whereas the church says contraception is a violation of the marital act. 🙂
 
AlanFromWichita said:
For example, if every couple had a family the size of mine, the population would multiply by 4 in one generation.
Click to expand...
However many people are born in one generation will also eventually die in approximately one generation as well. How do you figure the population would multiply by four in one generation?
Clearly it would be very difficult for society to adapt to that, and poor Texas would be packing them in at 300 sq ft each!
Click to expand...
If the world population went from Adam and Eve one day to - all of a sudden - today’s population levels, yes I am sure it would be difficult for society to adapt to that. It usually doesn’t work that way though, fortunately.😉
SpiritMeadow said:
uhuh…you’re forgetting the resources to feed, house, school, medicate, recreate, all those people. Your looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
Click to expand...
How much of the world’s surface do you think is currently being utilized for agriculture?
For the sake of discussion lets say that the population quadrupled. If all the people could fit in Texas with 1200 square feet of room, there are a few options for housing. Expand out into 4 states so everyone still has 1200 square feet or ‘squash’ everyone into 300 square feet? Or let everyone (whoever it is that is in charge of the letting) take advantage of the vastness of the unused portion of Earth besides Texas. What do you figure is the land surface ratio world wide compared to the land surface of Texas? How many farmers, doctors, gym instructors are born in each successive generation. Enough to provide these other desirabilities that a large population requires?
 
MomaMary8 said:
Out of my 8 children, I’m hoping one or two (or more??) will be called to the priest hood or religious life. So how does that fit in with the multiplication of the population? 🤷
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. It is assumed the population will just grow exponentionally in direct correlation to the number of children born in an isolated generation.
 
Actually we should be striving to reach our goal of filling the earth.
 
Too often, the problem is that “eco” minded people are a little fuzzy on who they’re saving things for. Unfortunately, the “solution” is obvious to them: remove as many people as possible.

The Earth is NOT a static system; it is a highly complex, dynamic system. The glaciers come and go. Animals come and go. The dinosaurs were wiped out by gasp global climate change! (Possibly thanks to an asteroid. Not a very human-influenced event, that.)

Do we really think we can stop the Earth changing by removing all the humans? Who would care, anyways? If animals are an inherent good, why not humans? And then there’s the fact that societies have become much less efficient in their consumption of resources as families have shrunk. Three people in a 4,000 sq ft house with two SUV’s and a boat in the driveway is better than a family of six in a house half the size, growing their own vegetables, and wearing hand-me-downs?

And if they really think people are the problem, why aren’t they volunteering to remove themselves first? 😉
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I fail to see why it is laughable. It’s certainly nothing new. It’s long been known that the planet cannot sustain a continuing rising population along with a decrease in fossil fuels.

.
Click to expand...
Long been known by whom? The Communist News Network? :rolleyes:
 
As long as they don’t abort there should be no limit to how many babies a couple can have and there should also be no requirement as to how many they should have. To each his own.
 
So the liberals want to sterilize themselves into extinction.

Why is this a problem? The fewer lefties we have, the better.
 
Wolseley said:
So the liberals want to sterilize themselves into extinction.

Why is this a problem? The fewer lefties we have, the better.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. The only good commie is one that’s dead. Such compassion.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top