How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[Warrior1979]

Question: Why would I grant any credibility to an unnamed friend…especially, when the debater who introduces the “unnamed friend expert” consistently debates, using fallacies in logic - trying to make a case?

No credibility is given to me. It is reasonable to assume that no credibility will be extended to anyone I know.

I will not be posting the personal information of anyone I know either…that is referred to as idiocy.

Ad hominem arguments - directly or implied by the debater …" If your not interested in understanding the basics, you won’t be interested in learning the principles based on them, from either me or anyone else." Implications without evidence ].

The above is also a Dismissal of evidence without providing any evidence.

You’ve provided no examples of Clausius being wrong. It is essential to your position.

 

[Warrior1979]

I know about chemical entropy. I don’t need to learn “the basics” from you or anybody else on the Internet.

Then you are aware that I am correct.

Internet content is, generally, worth the paper it’s printed on

Then obviously I don’t need to post links on the Internet.

 

[jhookjoe]

I have heard it explained that the world needs purging of excess population through war, famine and abortion. These progressive ideas are based on atheistic and agnostic points of view that say abortion is more “humane” that war.
Population control origins start at King Harad (Holy Innocents), through Darwin, to Margret Sanger, Lenin, the ACLU, and to today the Liberal and socialistic movement world wide
(3900/day aborted here in America).
I disagree 100%
Our feeble attempts to play God always ends in chaos.
I know it is fiction, but the premise of the movie, “Idiocracy” starts off on planned birth from yuppie elites verses uncontrolled birth from “Joe six pack types” having multiple births and multiple affairs leaving the world 50 years in the future with a descending curve of dumb people. Makes sense to me because so called secular intelligent people curb their birth rate voluntarily while average secular Americans continue their procreation unchecked. So the desired effect the intelligent people seek is never obtained.
If the world continues on its anti-Catholic coarse of population control, we will extinct ourselves. Only the Catholic Church has never wavered in its defense of life at all stages, unlike our 30000 denominations that cater to cafeteria Christians who shop for churches that fit their requirements of personal salvation on their terms, not God’s terms.
Sounds to me that history teaches us that the Catholic Church’s unseen enemy attacks through population control coordinated by Satan.
We must have Faith in God that he will solve our future problems and hold all life as sacred.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friend ,

… just did some rough calculations that i hope are right but you’ll get the idea i’m sure , the earths land surface if we allot 30 m2 area for every person would cater for 5 trillion people all at once , that’s 5,000,000,000,000 people , but if we allow for high rise buildings then lets say real high rise and allow 1 m2 for each person on the earths land surface ( not the sea surface ) and it can hold 150 trillion people at once now , so 150,000,000,000,000 , but it could be more and we could find a way to use the other 71 % odd of the earths surface on sea and then if we get the same high rise perhaps starting on the ocean floor , numbers would be 367.5 trillion people or over 56,500 x as many people as we have now on earth , the earth can hold many people , it will take an awful long time to increase population by 56,500 x for each and every person here , and then the earth is quite crowded , given currently the worlds population is going up by say 1 % per year avge , then it will take somewhere like 40,000 yrs ( you can do the maths if you want , it’s approx ) for the world to achieve max population if each person uses avge 1 m2 space of the whole surface , but then we have capacity for greater numbers such as the sea can hold much more and the land can have higher high rise buildings and we can go underground too , so lets be conservative and estimate we can accept 10 x the number of human beings on the planet for full capacity , that means it might take 400,000 years to reach full capacity now ,it can jst keep going like this too , then we look to the stars and given the enormous breathing space we have there and there should be ample time to perfect space travel , space stations and start colonising the cosmos as i’m sure we’re originally meant to , how many can we fit there ??? , the mind boggles , it’s so many and the universe is always expanding and why could god not create more galaxies if needs be ??? , we can go on forever here , but what about natural resources and food and drink ??? , what is sustainable ??? , well , scientists need to help us to live in perfect harmony with nature and perfectly naturally and we need to push for this , sustainable use of resources is achievable , we need not use anymore resources than say the cats and dogs do , if we live truly naturally we will use virtually no resources in that there will be no waste or excesses due to greed , we take and give back in a perfect stream of interchange of mass with and on our planet , we are not meant to plunder the planet for wealth ,we are meant to live naturally and in perfect harmony with our planet – if we do this we don’t need much of it’s resources at all , we take food and drink as essentials , we produce medicine and housing , if it is finetuned and you eliminate all greed and waste you will use very little , it can be done , in the garden of eden there is no waste or greed or resource probs like here – that would be the goal , though the goal is partial due to the fall and sin , but we can go interstellar for resources too , as we would have anyway , and there’s the fact this world is coming to an end soon – when jesus returns , that’s it , i got the figures searching the stats and using a calculator , they are a rough guide only , hope it helps , overpopulation is a myth of course , an excuse to eradicate the weak and defenselss humans ,

… god bless and love you ,

… john …

… my dearest friends ,

… my work was challenged for lack of authority and not quoting sources i believe ??? , i do not need authority to speak , what gives anyone this idea you need authority ??? , yet i speak by my own authority , and that is suffice , as to where i get my facts and figures from , it’s very easy , anyone can work it out for themselves , look up the area on the earths surface in km 2 if you like and turn it into m2 by multiplying it by 1,000,000 , you can check global population statistics and forecasts for population increase no worries , then you can use your brain to create hypothetical scenarios and project the possibilities , and who cares if you give a rough guide in your answer only ??? , what difference does it make ??? , it’s all guess work about the future anyway , so if you think i’m wrong do ten mins research yourself and work it all out on your calculator using your own mind dearest friends , you have authority to do so , don’t wait for someone to tell you - you have authority , and you have brains , you work it out ,

… god bless and love you all ,

… john …

 

[kimmielittle]

… my dearest friends ,

… my work was challenged for lack of authority and not quoting sources i believe ??? , i do not need authority to speak , what gives anyone this idea you need authority ??? , yet i speak by my own authority , and that is suffice , as to where i get my facts and figures from , it’s very easy , anyone can work it out for themselves , look up the area on the earths surface in km 2 if you like and turn it into m2 by multiplying it by 1,000,000 , you can check global population statistics and forecasts for population increase no worries , then you can use your brain to create hypothetical scenarios and project the possibilities , and who cares if you give a rough guide in your answer only ??? , what difference does it make ??? , it’s all guess work about the future anyway , so if you think i’m wrong do ten mins research yourself and work it all out on your calculator using your own mind dearest friends , you have authority to do so , don’t wait for someone to tell you - you have authority , and you have brains , you work it out ,

… god bless and love you all ,

… john …

I wasn’t referring to your post…

 

[wynnejj]

i got the figures searching the stats and using a calculator , they are a rough guide only , hope it helps , overpopulation is a myth of course , an excuse to eradicate the weak and defenselss humans ,
… john …

When there are many variables, extended forecasts are generally of little value. However, near future forecasts can have their value. When Columbus set sail, he paid no attention to the flat earth theory, but if he saw something that looked like the edge of a waterfall, I’m sure he would have wanted to do some quick near future forecasts and calculations.

My problem with the “Overpopulation is a Myth” argument is that it says, using trends based on pro-active family planning in the last half century, those who fear overpopulation are fools because extrapolating those trends will put us into a demographic winter. Nonsense. If you extrapolate using the trends prior to the de-facto “culture of death” trends of the last 50 years, you get a different picture.

The fact is that family planning is necessary in the current world for overpopulation concerns, and different countries feel it more acutely than others, as acknowledged in the encyclical “Familiaris Consortio”.

1. The Church is certainly aware of the many complex problems which couples in many countries face today in their task of transmitting life in a responsible way. She also recognizes the serious problem of population growth in the form it has taken in many parts of the world and its moral implications.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

When there are many variables, extended forecasts are generally of little value. However, near future forecasts can have their value. When Columbus set sail, he paid no attention to the flat earth theory, but if he saw something that looked like the edge of a waterfall, I’m sure he would have wanted to do some quick near future forecasts and calculations.

My problem with the “Overpopulation is a Myth” argument is that it says, using trends based on pro-active family planning in the last half century, those who fear overpopulation are fools because extrapolating those trends will put us into a demographic winter. Nonsense. If you extrapolate using the trends prior to the de-facto “culture of death” trends of the last 50 years, you get a different picture.

The fact is that family planning is necessary in the current world for overpopulation concerns, and different countries feel it more acutely than others, as acknowledged in the encyclical “Familiaris Consortio”.

In that case, you MUST include the impact on population of the magnetic polar reversal accompanied by “removal” of the magnetosphere for a few [thousand] years.

It’s kind of “unfair” to include only positive growth without including negative influences on the growth.

 

[StevenFrancis]

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?

Seems kind of open ended. What I would say would depend on the point of the argument, I suppose. Is this arguing that we are overpopulated? Will be at some point? Are we arguing for and against euthenasia and abortion?

I guess my overall comment to all of these things is that God is the author of life. We, as His creations have no right, neither specific nor implied, to make the determination of who should be born, or who should be killed as a drag or burden on the world population. Ours is to give life. Not prevent it, or take it away. All persons have only one primary, and unwaiverable “right”, and that is the right to exist. If one is not allowed to become, or fulfill their natural life once they’ve been born, then someone else is being put in the position of murderer whether they view it that way or not.

So the argument against overpopulation is moot. We trust that God will take care of the big picture.

Artificial contraception, Embryonic stem cell research which creates new lines, and IVF are all social engineering and eugenics

Abortion and Euthenasia are murder

All of them stain the soul of man.

But even when you look at it apart from faith and morals, who among men has the right to decide who the “too many” people are?

Just my 2 cents. I don’t know if this addresses any of what you’re even looking for with these devils advocate statements, but by and large, I’m finding that these are my answers for virtually the whole gamut of man’s sundry attempts to define and control the existence of man.

I don’t think I’d even care to address specific details of ideas which go against these principles. If the idea didn’t start with these principles in mind, then it’s already off the rails.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[wynnejj]

In that case, you MUST include the impact on population of the magnetic polar reversal accompanied by “removal” of the magnetosphere for a few [thousand] years.

It’s kind of “unfair” to include only positive growth without including negative influences on the growth.

Biblically, God promised us that there would be NO natural disaster that would make us start all over again in terms of population after Noah’s time. The population history of the world is like a parabolic curve, and although various sections of the world may have its natural disasters, the aggregate of all sections of the world show an inexorable climb in population. I don’t think natural disasters will play a significant role in population growth in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

As a “mathie”, I wouldn’t know how to quantify this polar reversal effect. And, I think it as valid as the December 21, 2012 fortune telling. The only effect of the magnetosphere that I can see is that people are obviously thinking more with a different hemisphere of their brain, and swinging more politically left than right - both Church and State, IMO. The delicate balance of sodality (“We” national/global level solve the problem) versus subsidiarity (“Me” - personal/local level - solve the problem) seems to be tipping more and more from Me to We in our Western culture.

What is germane to this discussion thread is the question why the increased hype about population control in our culture. The Bible says “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”. “Fill the earth” suggests that there is a full carrying capacity level. Have we reached it and, now we should concentrate on subduing it? Are large and generous families irresponsible for the near future calculations?

From what I’ve read about the Catholic position, married couples do not have the right to intentionally choose to have NO children as a pre-condition of their marriage contract (grounds for annulment), but married couples do have the right to limit family size due to serious reasons that might include duty to human society. Of course, some form of abstinence is the only method whereby this is permissible to achieve.

In other words, if you live in a nation that is overpopulated in terms of limited resources (China, India?), even if there are no laws forcing or coercing family planning, married couples who could easily afford and take on the responsibility of more children, could choose one or two child family for human society reasons.

 

[buffalo]

Breast Milk ‘Miracle Cure’ for Malnutrition

 

[Catmando]

We need to be a more sustainable society, but achieving this by systematically ridding the world of who we consider unnecessary, weak, useless, or, God forbid, “not yet sentient” is an unethical and absurd method. I thought Social Darwinism died out decades ago?

 

[BraveNewFamily]

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?

Tell them that everyone in the world could fit in the state of Texas, and the population destiny would be less than New York City’s.

 

[Warrior1979]

Tell them that everyone in the world could fit in the state of Texas,

Exactly how does being able to cram the world’s population like sardines into Texas support your position?

and the population destiny would be less than New York City’s.

There lies part of you answer. Where does NY City get the resources to support itself. Hint: It’s not from NY City. In fact, if our energy resources get to a level that can’t support ourselves, the first thing those NY City resident are going to do is get out of the city.

 

[kimmielittle]

Whereas: The majority of people selling Overpopulation are guys

Whereas: These believers say this problem needs to be addressed in the most economical and assuredly successful way.

Whereas: We know Leaders Preachers ] Lead by example.

Whereas: Vasectomies are known to fail.

The world governments have now created a MANDATORY eunuch program for Overpopulation believers / preachers .

STEP FORWARD.

sarc off/

 

[wynnejj]

Whereas: The majority of people selling Overpopulation are guys

Whereas: These believers say this problem needs to be addressed in the most economical and assuredly successful way.

Whereas: We know Leaders Preachers ] Lead by example.

Whereas: Vasectomies are known to fail.

The world governments have now created a MANDATORY eunuch program for Overpopulation believers / preachers .

STEP FORWARD.

sarc off/

This is exactly why a woman will never be elected to the presidency (or, is it that just the audacity of I hope, I hope…).

Talk about getting to the root cause of overpopulation.

You know, I’ve re-assessed my reasoning in light of your very strong arguments, and I am now in complete agreement that overpopulation is a myth. You win!

 

[Warrior1979]

The world governments have now created a MANDATORY eunuch program for Overpopulation believers / preachers.

Then our only choice would be to adopt…oh, wait…I already did that.

 

[Big_Dummy]

what if everyone who claims we are over populated ended their own lives?

I mean if they really are committed to sloving the over population problem, myth.

 

[kimmielittle]

The real world observations aren’t supporting the overpopulation hypothesis.

The UNDP itself admits that 79 countries, including several dozen in the less developed world, now have fertility rates that are below the level needed to ensure the long-term survival of the population. Most of the rest, everybody except the UN now seems to know, are likely to cross this demographic fault line over the next few decades.

Whistling in this looming demographic darkness, the UNDP blithely predicts that people in low fertility countries will suddenly become enamored of babies again. You got that right. They predict, without providing a shred of evidence, that birthrates will somehow gravitate to the replacement levels again.

What planet are they living on?

lifesitenews.com/news/why-is-the-un-arbitrarily-inflating-population-predictions

lifesitenews.com/news/how-to-create-a-baby-boom-in-russia

 

[GEddie]

It makes sense, that after a time of “demographic winter,” folks would become “enamored of babies” again. The world population was never going to rise until all the topsoil was formed into human bodies; nor was it ever going to crash into extinction, absent some physical catastrophe. Populations are cyclical, just as weather patterns are cyclical.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Luke1983]

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?

You’re right but until then who cares! There’s no reason to start making questions about things millennias from now, now. Live life now and stop worrying about what’s going to happen in 1000 years time because we don’t even know what’s gonna happen tomorrow!

No one 1000 years ago cared if we would have had the resources today and were right cos we have more than they ever had! And the world’s population back then was around 10% of what it is today maybe even less