How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[phil8888]

Hey guys,

I read most of your replies. Thanks for them!

I guess I just need to add that what I’m talking about is what if everyone followed Catholic teaching against contraception.

I tend to think like some have suggested that by the time the population becomes an issue, we would have the technology to live elsewhere in the universe as well.

I also liked the idea put forth that God is in charge so we need not worry about that stuff.

Plus, I think if resources were very low, then according to the principles of Catholicism, people could legitimately limit the number of children they have using NFP.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

maybe by the time this is a problem we will have figured out fusion power and have unlimited energy to, for example, terraform the moon into a giant pasture and use it for grazing prime Black Angus beef so you can grill some nice burgers 5 nights a week, plus steak on Sundays. Vegetarians would run out of resources though.

 

[Alix1912]

Oh, and Garyjohn, it’s not pro-choice; it’s pro-ABORTION. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Agreed on the Pro Choice vrs. Pro Abortion wording. I laugh that while I use NFP and am married to a Catholic, I am 100% Prochoice BEFORE conception for people who are not Catholic. You don’t want to get pregnant…utilize one of the plethora of methods to prevent the egg and sperm meeting, one of which, and the most effective is to refrain from having sex until you are in a place in life where you can be open to new life.

Hey guys,

I read most of your replies. Thanks for them!

I guess I just need to add that what I’m talking about is what if everyone followed Catholic teaching against contraception.

I tend to think like some have suggested that by the time the population becomes an issue, we would have the technology to live elsewhere in the universe as well.

I also liked the idea put forth that God is in charge so we need not worry about that stuff.

Plus, I think if resources were very low, then according to the principles of Catholicism, people could legitimately limit the number of children they have using NFP.

I think that people offten mis interpret the Catholic teaching on ABC to mean have as many kids as you can pop out which is not the case. It really is use sexuality and NFP to responsibiliy grow your family.

 

[kimmielittle]

Do people really take this stuff seriously? I personally thought there would be some substance to this website when I clicked on it. Note the complete absence of any link between what is discussed in the video and resource use.

The real question is: Can you disprove it?

 

[kimmielittle]

UN report:

Replacement Migration:
Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

un.org/News/Press/docs/2000/20000317.dev2234.doc.html

How much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. (Of course, I’ve ignored that fact that many parts of Japan would be unsuitable for dwelling places, and I’ve neglected the land needed for roads, parks, schools, etc.) In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot. That’s smaller than the typical American lot of about 8000 square feet, but it’s not unbearably small.If we insisted on American standards, with only 4 people per lot of at least 8,000 square feet, then Gale Lyle Pooley shows that an area the size of Texas plus Nevada would be adequate (op. cit., p. 93). That would make those two states less attractive, perhaps, but it would leave the rest of the world for food production, animal reserves, nature movies, Woodstock festivals, or whatever. In terms of the real resources of this planet, we are not overpopulated.

jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml

 

[Rascalking]

Well-said.

At the root of it all is a fear of procreation, of human dignity itself. Follow the ‘green’ money and you always end up at the same place: the myth that we need to abort and deny care to elderly inconvenient people.

This nonsense first took hold in the late 1960s/early 1970s. As a society, we seem to be chasing our own tail.

Oh, and Garyjohn, it’s not pro-choice; it’s pro-ABORTION. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Thanks Sailor.

There is something so darn stupid about the “over population” myth that it really makes my skin crawl (you can probably tell through my posts that it DEFINITELY hit a nerve).

GK Chesterton said it best when he said, “When people don’t believe in God, they will believe anything.” The overpopulation myth garbage is a great example of that.

 

[Warrior1979]

The real question is: Can you disprove it?

I have to admit, I’ve never been asked to disprove a cartoon before.

“Disprove” is difficult to do with anyone, simply because the person(s) on the other side of the argument sets their own standard of proof, which is typically set at an unreasonable level. The problem with even beginning to “disprove” the cartoon is it simply lacks any basis to start a discussion.

 

[Warrior1979]

How much land does it take to hold 6 billion people? To give you an idea, consider the small nation of Japan. It has about 143,000 square miles of area. One square mile has 5280 * 5280 = 27.9 million square feet. Japan has a total of about 4 trillion square feet, enough to give each person of the earth 670 square feet. If we housed people in families of four in simple two-level buildings (8 people per building, one family of four per level), each building could be on a lot of over 5300 square feet. (Of course, I’ve ignored that fact that many parts of Japan would be unsuitable for dwelling places, and I’ve neglected the land needed for roads, parks, schools, etc.) In a land area as small as Japan, the entire population of the earth could be housed on lots of 5300 square feet, with 8 people per lot. That’s smaller than the typical American lot of about 8000 square feet, but it’s not unbearably small.If we insisted on American standards, with only 4 people per lot of at least 8,000 square feet, then Gale Lyle Pooley shows that an area the size of Texas plus Nevada would be adequate (op. cit., p. 93). That would make those two states less attractive, perhaps, but it would leave the rest of the world for food production, animal reserves, nature movies, Woodstock festivals, or whatever. In terms of the real resources of this planet, we are not overpopulated.

Quite frankly, this in and of itself is not relevant. We can find craters on other planets where we can fit the entire population of the earth in…problem is they won’t survive more than a minute in that environment.

It’s all about resources necessary to survive in the particular area that matters. This is simply fact, with plenty of evidence over millenia to support it. Hunter/gatherer societies have low population per area; modern, very-energy-dependent societies have high density. When resources suddenly become available, populations explode; see desert countries in the Mideast for examples. When societies run out of readily available resources, the collapse; see Rome.

The current population of the earth is only possible through the very dense, fossil energy resources. When they become scarce, population will adjust accordingly, as always happens throughout history.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have to admit, I’ve never been asked to disprove a cartoon before.

“Disprove” is difficult to do with anyone, simply because the person(s) on the other side of the argument sets their own standard of proof, which is typically set at an unreasonable level. The problem with even beginning to “disprove” the cartoon is it simply lacks any basis to start a discussion.

The same can be said for proveing something as the person to whom to are tring to prove something to can set the bar of what is exceptable as proof beyound reach.

There are non so Blind as he that will not see.

 

[Warrior1979]

The same can be said for proveing something as the person to whom to are tring to prove something to can set the bar of what is exceptable as proof beyound reach.

I’m more than willing to have a discussion based on history and accepted scientific principles, not what is presented in a superficial cartoon. These items are simply ignored in discussions like this, because they do not support the opposing sides POV. However, ignoring them doesn’t change anything, other than blinds them to reality.

There are non so Blind as he that will not see.

Exactly. It’s a shame that people waste the intellect that God gave them.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Warrior1979;7710086]I’m more than willing to have a discussion based on history and accepted scientific principles, not what is presented in a superficial cartoon. These items are simply ignored in discussions like this, because they do not support the opposing sides POV. However, ignoring them doesn’t change anything, other than blinds them to reality

.

Then what you do is provide them if the person in the discussion choice to ignor or reject them the conversation is over. but mocking the form in which they have the POV they hold does not add to healthy conversation either.

Exactly. It’s a shame that people waste the intellect that God gave them.

Amen.

 

[Joel_PF]

I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

Its first part is undeniably true. However, the conclusion is misleading.

If we live in a society with free markets, the prices of products tell us how scarce they are compared to one another. If too many people are using copper, the price of copper goes up.

As resources become more scarce and their prices go up (while the price of labor, that is, salaries, go down because there are so many people willing to work), life gets naturally more expensive, and thus people decide how large a family they can afford. There needs to be no social policy of limiting births. A man may prefer to have many kids but be poor, another may think it best to space his children more and provide his family with better things. Another, seeing the cost of life going up while salaries go down, may delay marriage.

HOWEVER, consider that increase of population has two effects: more consumption of resources is only one of them. The other is increase in productivity, as the division of labor becomes more intensive and as there are more people around to have good ideas on how to do things better, use resources more efficiently, more creatively.

Eventually, theoretically, the effect of more consumption trumps the gains of productivity. But there is no indication that we are on such a stage. It seems today, on the contrary, that if more people are born the world will be richer, because the gains in productivity still surpass the increase in consumption. Evidence? Population is growing and the world is richer.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think I need to go bang my head on the nearest wall.

OK.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’m more than willing to have a discussion based on history and accepted scientific principles, not what is presented in a superficial cartoon. These items are simply ignored in discussions like this, because they do not support the opposing sides POV. However, ignoring them doesn’t change anything, other than blinds them to reality.

Exactly. It’s a shame that people waste the intellect that God gave them.

You do know that the Church invented science.

 

[lynx]

You do know that the Church invented science.

scientificmethod.com/sm5_smhistory.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Quite frankly, this in and of itself is not relevant. We can find craters on other planets where we can fit the entire population of the earth in…problem is they won’t survive more than a minute in that environment.

It’s all about resources necessary to survive in the particular area that matters. This is simply fact, with plenty of evidence over millenia to support it. Hunter/gatherer societies have low population per area; modern, very-energy-dependent societies have high density. When resources suddenly become available, populations explode; see desert countries in the Mideast for examples. When societies run out of readily available resources, the collapse; see Rome.

The current population of the earth is only possible through the very dense, fossil energy resources. When they become scarce, population will adjust accordingly, as always happens throughout history.

You failed to address the UN report

 

[Warrior1979]

You failed to address the UN report

If you’re talking about the links provided in this thread, I don’t get your point, because it supports what I am saying, albeit indirectly. Compare the list of countries listed to net importing nations.

 

[wynnejj]

I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

(I would concede the point that overpopulation is a potential threat if the second coming of Jesus is a myth.)

Overpopulation versus Divine Providence

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=268396

As we go round and round about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, it occurs to me that the key question is fundamentally about whether or not America (and the world) trusts in God’s Divine Providence enough to enact moral laws that go against rational thought. It occurs to me that all Pro-Life arguments are illogical and irresponsible if the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice ideology which denies God’s Divine Providence is accepted as Truth.

The fact is that most arguments that the Pro-Choice camp asserts are very logical and generally responsible. The arguments of the Pro-Life camp can be demonstrated illogical and irresponsible given the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice camp. That premise is that if there is a God, we the people are to plan our world without any expectation that Divine Providence will intervene on our behalf. God has set the world in motion, and it is up to us to make it work for us the best we can.

It is like the old lifeboat question. Will we be saved? Must we ration our resources? Will there come a point that we must ask volunteers to jump overboard? Will we have to vote to see who we will forcibly throw overboard? Should we hang tight and wait for a saviour?

The Pro-Choice ideology seems closely coupled with poverty and environmental concerns. For practical reasons, it has defined the pre-born human being as not a citizen with the fundamental human right to life. Given concerns about population control, quality of life over quantity of life, and children born to poor families, it seems practical to allow a mother to make the tough decision to abort the unwanted child rather than neglect the child. A neglected child will ultimately be a burden to our social system as a child and as an adult.

The Pro-Life ideology has this to say about the over-population concern: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” It says that the pre-born child is a sacred responsibility, not a choice. It says man must overcome completely his natural animalistic, biological imperative to reproduce freely and without undue concern to consequences.

The fact is that the Bible says: “Be fruitful and multiply”. No messenger from God or Marian apparition (that I know of) has ever countermanded that directive. The idea of limiting family size is man’s idea only, near as I can tell.

Go back to the lifeboat analogy. Let’s say that those in the lifeboat despair of being saved and start to make some of those tough decisions. A few sacrificed themselves and jumped overboard. Later, some hard choices were made by the many against a few who were denied their right to life. Then a saviour came and became very angry because his own sons and daughters had been among those forcibly thrown overboard. No survivor in the lifeboat could deny the fact that they had committed murder against the saviour’s sons and daughters. Their only defense is that they did not trust that their saviour would come.

The question always comes up as to whether Christians should vote to thwart others who are weak in faith or do not share our faith in Our Saviour. Go back to the lifeboat again. If among the many who murdered the few, there were those among the many who voted against forcibly denying the few their right to life, then how do you think Our Saviour would handle them?

 

[kildare]

We can deal with the world’s resources in three ways:

1. Chastity.
2. Charity
3. Temperance

As far as I can see, the world is totally opposed to the above, as it is christian inspired and so is coming up with its own malthusian alternatives which now adays promote the murdering of the unborn.

I would call on all catholics here to reflect on the fact that as stewards of nature we have behaved awfully, sacrificing wild-life for more spacious abodes, for more food, and for more material toys.

What would St. Francis do ? What would Jesus do?

The Christian solution will lead to a world of peace and harmony. The materialist path is going to lead to wars, famines and ultimately enforced genocide.

 

[apfal]

@wynnejj: looking at it in the light of the Second Coming makes a lot of sense; but we obviously can’t use that argument when discussing it with non-Christians.

And I would argue that the overpopulation argument fails even then. It assumes we are limited to Earth, which is not necessary. (We have known how to build quite powerful spacecraft since the 1960s (NERVA etc.); only irrational fear of nuclear power has prevented their use. If we ever need them, we’ll know how to do it.) And even on Earth… would people in the Middle Ages ever have imagined that we could have nearly 7 billion people? The number of people Earth can support is based on agricultural technology.

China is a net exporter of food; it is not more arable, on average, than the world; if the world had China’s population density, it would be a bit over 20 billion people. So I am not really convinced that our current technology couldn’t support 15-20 billion. (Well, we’d have to do something about the real ‘sustainability’ issue we face – fossil fuels… but that’s essentially an economic problem. We don’t need new breakthroughs… the problem is that oil etc. are currently helped both by economies of scale and government aid – tax breaks etc. So the new stuff – solar, cellulosic ethanol, etc. – will probably need some government help, ironically, to compete ‘fairly’ until it gets big enough to benefit from the economies of scale itself.)

The First World is actually facing economic problems from underpopulation – both Western Europe and developed parts of Asia have a below-replacement birthrate. (The US birthrate is above replacement, but only due to immigration; if one excludes the US-born children of immigrants, it drops to slightly below replacement.)

We will not possibly reach a population that our current technology can’t support for centuries… by which point we may well have deep-sea colonies with massive aquaculture or turned the Sahara into farmland or superbiotech crops that have ten times the photosynthesis efficiency of normal plants or …

(I do not think anyone is really predicting what bio-tech will be able to do for crops; it is a very new field, and most of the ‘First World’ countries have very draconian regulations. Once it really gets started, I think the results will be immense.)