Hypothetical: A world without contraception

[TK421]

I wanted to start this thread to mull over the implications of what a world would be like if nobody used contraception. I have relatively recently accepted contraception as immoral and I’m pondering in my head how the aversion to it would affect the world.

Please, for any non-Catholics, this is not a debate of the morality of it in itself. I’m trying to think about the effects in the wider world.

There’s a pack of different populist arguments out there for why the Catholic Church’s view on contraception is supposedly crazy. A lack of contraception helps spread AIDS; it leads to abortions; it ruins people’s sex lives. I don’t think any of those arguments hold any weight. One thing that I am a bit caught up on is that without it, the world population would explode out of control.

Now, it’s well-established that the more virulent anti-people people grossly exaggerate the dangers of overpopulation. Several parts of the world are suffering demographic decline or collapse as we speak. In many other parts, the population is starting to stabilize. We are in no immediate threat in our lifetime of the entire world looking like the Chinese northeastern seaboard. Not even close.

Still, while we can easily enough refute the above propaganda, there are a few inarguable facts we can’t deny:

• There is a finite amount of space in the world
• If married couples have more than two children on average, the population will grow
• If the above scenario is satisfied, given X amount of time, the world will become overpopulated.

Now, as we are aware, there will never come a time where the entire world will be devout, orthodox Catholic. Still, as with any moral system, Catholic morality is something that would ideally be practiced by every person, everywhere. So if the entire world’s population were to avoid contraception, would it lead to inevitable overpopulation and all the misery and destruction that comes with it? Perhaps it’s not something that would actually happen until many, many, many generations passed, but might it be the eventual result? I suppose you could say that, as with animal species, the population might eventually collapse naturally as a result of famine (similar to how insect populations explode and collapse and explode again depending on seasonal food supply), but this seems like an extremely weak and questionable refutation to the long-term idea of overpopulation. “Oh, it’s cool guys, eventually people will just start starving to death.” It’s a true enough point, but I don’t think it’s going to win over any hearts and minds. What must also be considered is how the medical revolution has affected this issue. People freely procreated in past centuries without giving the issue of overpopulation much thought. Why? Because people died exceedingly more often in the past than they do today. With the proper infrastructure and services, fatalities from various genetic and contagious diseases have plummeted to a small fraction of what they once were. Most people get old and wrinkled before they die. This is a fairly recent development.

 

[TK421]

So then, other than “the human population will eventually decline from starvation and ecological turmoil”, what are some less dismal points to consider? I think there are several, but what must be understood is that if we’re going to envision a world without contraception, I think it is perfectly fair enough to also consider a world that submits to Catholic sexuality morality on the whole. So if we assume that people are actually willing to not use contraceptives or sterilize themselves (homosexual behavior is naturally included in this category), then we can also assume that people are not fornicating and having children outside of marriage, masturbating to porn, etc.

1. The window of having children is lessened.

As I already pointed out, prior to the medical revolution, uninhibited procreation wasn’t such a big deal because humanity was constantly suffering huge casualties from disease and injury. This has changed in a more technological society. However, what has also changed in a more technological society is the need for education and the longer time it takes to mature into being a productive, independent adult. For most of human history, the average commoner was essentially treated as an adult around the age of twelve. Most people got married and began having families as teenagers; many of them even young teenagers. Now, the average person doesn’t complete high school until they are 18, and many people are then wrapped up for 2 or more years with trade schools, vocational schools, undergraduate studies, or graduate studies. Most people are not getting married during this time, or at the very least until they’re starting college. So when we talk about the overall window of when a husband and wife are capable of having children, we’ve probably chopped off almost a full decade.

1. The expansion of single persons and consecrated persons

Answering the call of a single or consecrated life is much more difficult than what it ought to be in our hypersexualized society. But what about in a loving Catholic society, where sex is healthily practiced within the intimacy of matrimony? While still an imperfect example, consider the proportionate number of single brothers and sisters in old Christian Europe compared to today. Needless to say, when you’re not living in a world where sex is glorified and treated as the equivalent to a recreational drug, the mind is much more free to focus on God, piety, creativity, beauty, and ingenuity. So a person cannot deny that in a world where Catholic morals were universally aspired to, there would assuredly be a far more sizable population of single persons.

1. Improved technology

This isn’t directly related to morality, but since we’re talking about the threat of overpopulation and ecological collapse in the long term, then I think it must be worth pointing out that inevitability we will be much more efficient than what we are today. Future technology can’t be accurately predicted, but we can still safely say that we will be better at conservation, reusing, and renewing our land and resources, perhaps even indefinitely?

1. Responsible NFP

The 4th and most major point is the use of responsible NFP. Not all Catholic families will be living on a rural farm and having over ten children. Couples would be able to moderate the rate of their children as they go through their lives together as husband and wife, however the critical difference between this and contraception is that it is open to life, it is based around mutual observation and respect of the spouse, and it does not risk turning them into an object (unless NFP is used with a contraceptive mentality). New lives would and could still be moderated in Catholic communities depending on corporal difficulties and it would not be a chaotic rabbit pen.

Those are the 4 points I’ve considered. Does anybody have more to add to the list? What are your thoughts?

 

[quiet52]

…if we’re going to envision a world without contraception, I think it is perfectly fair enough to also consider a world that submits to Catholic sexuality morality on the whole…

1. The window of having children is lessened.
2. The expansion of single persons and consecrated persons
3. Improved technology
4. Responsible NFP

Those are the 4 points I’ve considered. Does anybody have more to add to the list? What are your thoughts?

I think your points are well-thought-out and on the mark. The only other result of a pro-life, Catholic morals culture I can think of offhand is the inevitable charitable mindset. When the culture values life, then people are more likely to be more connected (vs. impersonal and apathetic) and other-centered. People who “live Church” will be more willing to be involved in the lives of families who are struggling or suffering.

 

[Usige]

The other point would be in relationship to your first bullet on people getting married older. A woman is most fertile in her mid teens to mid twenties. After 25 there are excelerating drops in fertility rates as a woman ages. Part of this is increased rates of infertility and greater risk of miscarrage as a woman ages. By 25 there is a 3-4% chance that a couple will be infertile. By 30 its closer to 8 or 9%. This means that women who start having children in their late 20s and early 30s will have fewer viable pregnancies.

Probably a third to a half of my wife’s NFP students are in their early to mid thirties and are having difficulties conceiving. They put off children to establish their careers or to find the perfect partner and thought having babies in their 30s would be a slam dunk.

 

[SusanneT]

Just a thought but remember that in the world before widespread and easy contraception what might be called Catholic morals were completely mainstream. Women especially were less promiscuous , few children were born out of wedlock etc

 

[10gr8kids]

Something else we have to remember is that following God’s law is always the best plan. God wants what is best for us. We believe Satan’s lie that the apple is good and we surely won’t die. We begin to think we are smarter than God. How many times have we all done that which we knew was wrong because it seemed so “good”, only to realize later how much happier we would have been to listen to our Father in heaven. God wants our happiness not our demise. He has a plan that is good if we follow Him.

This train of thought will not convince anyone with a secular world veiw, but for those who call God “Father” it is something to remember.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Just a thought but remember that in the world before widespread and easy contraception what might be called Catholic morals were completely mainstream. Women especially were less promiscuous , few children were born out of wedlock etc

That is true. According to the Catholic Church and every other Christian Church too up until the 1930s or so, using contraception was considered intrinsically evil. Some babies were born out of wedlock, but they were relatively few.

 

[JimG]

Before one gets too worked up about the hypothetical problems posed by a world without contraception, I would recommend a reading of this book about the actual results of the widespread practice of contraception.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

OP,

As another poster mentioned earlier, if the entire world were devoutly Catholic, there would be fewer children born out of wedlock. Thats one population control right there.

Another is, not everyone is called to be married. So if the entire world were devoutly Catholic and God realized if they all multiplied they would overrun the earth, Im sure in His wisdom he would only call half to marriage and to multiply, so as to not overrun the earth.

Nowhere does it say that if you are Catholic you MUST get married.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

God created the Heavens and the Earth with a plan. His plan included an openess to life. The notion that He didn’t account for running out of space due to His plan is ludicrous. That’s where trusting God and not biting the apple comes into play.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I don’t think there’d be more babies, I just think there’d be less sex. I mean, the only kind that would really exist would be boring penile-vaginal sex that you have with your spouse because you feel that you have an obligation to do so. Seriously, though, if contraception had never existed then sex would probably not exist in the eyes of the public and would probably be taboo, things like homosexuality would probably be taboo/illegal, and we’d probably be less advanced since we would supposedly lack the intelligence to invent contraception (which, let’s face it, would be the first thing anyone would want to invent).

 

[quiet52]

I don’t think there’d be more babies, I just think there’d be less sex. I mean, the only kind that would really exist would be boring penile-vaginal sex that you have with your spouse because you feel that you have an obligation to do so. Seriously, though, if contraception had never existed then sex would probably not exist in the eyes of the public and would probably be taboo, things like homosexuality would probably be taboo/illegal, and we’d probably be less advanced since we would supposedly lack the intelligence to invent contraception (which, let’s face it, would be the first thing anyone would want to invent).

I’m sorry you have such a limited, sad perspective about sex and about marriage.
Faithful Catholics believe that it’s an awesome and beautiful gift from God.

Contraception has been used since biblical times, but using it or inventing new contraceptive means does not make users/inventors more intelligent, only less appreciative of the dignity of each person and less inspired to use God’s gifts properly.

 

[manualman]

The answer to this already exists in demographic study data. Demographers widely agree that human civilizations can be classified into three fertility stages.

1. Pre-industrial agrarian societies with high birth rates, high death rates and very slow population growth.
2. Transitional societies newly enjoying medicine, industry and technology that retain high birth rates, but have low death rates and thus have high population growth rates.
3. Mature urban, industrial societies that have very low birth rates, low death rates and low/no population growth rates.

Interestingly, group #3 LONG predates the pill or latex condoms. Wealthy urban populations way back into the early 1800’s had very low fertility rates that were masked by the relatively small size of that group compared to the agrarian surrounding population (Humans are mammals and it really isn’t THAT hard to detect the fertility symptoms). From what I’ve read, in the absence of readily available and socially respectable contraception, this group tends to almost exactly replace itself with very little growth.

I’d argue that there is actually a FOURTH group, the mature urban industrialized society WITH contraception readily available and socially respectable. These sorts of societies are ALL below replacement rate, most of them FAR below replacement rate. Look up “CIA total fertility rates” for global data (TFR of 2.1 is replacement rate).

So the catholic argument is that overpopulation does NOT come from lack of contraception, but from lack of the completion of the transition from poor rural society to educated urban society. If we spend the money we currently give to condom and big pharma companies on giving a hand up to transitioning societies it might actually be more effective in the medium term in controlling population and won’t result in the impending population collapse that the contraceptive approach IS going to have in the next 100 years. Not ONE nation on earth where contraception is both socially respectable and widely available (cheap or free) has a positive fertility rate. In the scheme of things, it really doesn’t take all that long for sustained TFR of 1.5 to result in the extinction of a society. And that’s where western civilization is right now.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I agree with Regular Atheist’s point that there’d be less sex in general. However, I don’t see that in a negative light. There’d be far less promiscuity and people would–gasp!–actually think about the consequences of their actions. You’d see an increase in the marriage rate, a drop in the divorce rate and an increase in the number of stable families. There’d be fewer unwed mothers, fewer fatherless children. I believe there would also be fewer abortions, not just because there’d be fewer unwanted pregnancies but because of the forced consideration of the consequences of one’s actions and the inherent respect for life that grows out of a non-contracepting mentality. It wouldn’t be a magic bullet that cures all society’s ills, but it would certainly lessen the effects of a good number of them.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I agree with Regular Atheist’s point that there’d be less sex in general. However, I don’t see that in a negative light. There’d be far less promiscuity and people would–gasp!–actually think about the consequences of their actions. You’d see an increase in the marriage rate, a drop in the divorce rate and an increase in the number of stable families. There’d be fewer unwed mothers, fewer fatherless children. I believe there would also be fewer abortions, not just because there’d be fewer unwanted pregnancies but because of the forced consideration of the consequences of one’s actions and the inherent respect for life that grows out of a non-contracepting mentality. It wouldn’t be a magic bullet that cures all society’s ills, but it would certainly lessen the effects of a good number of them.

I’d imagine abortion would be illegal in most countries, seeing as people would have much more family-orientated views. I’d imagine the majority of people would be pro-life, and would have fairly “Victorian” views of sex. I certainly couldn’t see sex existing outside of marriage much, seeing as pregnancy would be harder to avoid and would probably be more shameful (outside of marriage, that is). The sexual revolution would obviously never have happened if contraception never existed, and all the homosexual stuff probably wouldn’t be happening, so I guess Christianity would be in a better place.

 

[jmcrae]

There’s a pack of different populist arguments out there for why the Catholic Church’s view on contraception is supposedly crazy. A lack of contraception helps spread AIDS; it leads to abortions; it ruins people’s sex lives. I don’t think any of those arguments hold any weight. One thing that I am a bit caught up on is that without it, the world population would explode out of control.

Actually, it would restore the link between sex and family, and more people would reserve sex for marriage. Sexually transmitted diseases would decline.

Still, while we can easily enough refute the above propaganda, there are a few inarguable facts we can’t deny:

• There is a finite amount of space in the world
• If married couples have more than two children on average, the population will grow
• If the above scenario is satisfied, given X amount of time, the world will become overpopulated.

Actually, what couples need to do to keep the population stable is produce two children who survive to adulthood, marry, and have children of their own.

Not every child survives to adulthood - accidents happen, illnesses happen. Not every child who survives to adulthood will be fertile, and some will choose not to marry. Some will choose the religious life or the priesthood. Some will find it difficult to balance work and family, and will choose to remain single. Some will stay home to care for aging parents, and come into the social world of adults seeking marriage at an age past their childbearing years.

Not every fertile couple is going to produce 12 children. Children themselves provide the busy lifestyle and lack of privacy that effectively limits the number of children a couple might have. Couples living in busy cities had fewer children before there was such a thing as artificial birth control, simply because they were busy with work and various kinds of entertainment, as well as the variety of activities their children were doing.

 

[OurLadyPray4US]

God created the Heavens and the Earth with a plan. His plan included an openess to life. The notion that He didn’t account for running out of space due to His plan is ludicrous. That’s where trusting God and not biting the apple comes into play.

Yes, I think we should never forget this. Jesus Christ taught us a lesson or two, about feeding the multitudes with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. And it’s not only Jesus Christ who did this. There’s a canonized Jesuit saint from the 16th or 17th century who ran an orphanage and a similar miracle happened when they didn’t have enough bread. It also happened in St. John Bosco’s orphanage in the 19th century. These are only two miracles from New Testament times that I’m aware of, but there could have been more. And of course, in the OT time, God ordered the birds to feed Prophet Elijah, and there was the miracle of the widow of Sarephtah, who didn’t run out of oil and flour for a full year or so, and was able to feed her son, herself, and the Prophet Elijah.

It looks like God has been in charge throughout history, and he continues to be in charge today. Of course, this is not an explanation that an agnostic or atheist will find easy to accept, and it will be challenging even for devout Christians to trust God to this degree. However, this is our ultimate and surest guarantee always: God will provide for us.

On a more technical level, there are a lot of variables that don’t even require an out and out miracle. Maybe with advances in science and technology, we will transform wast swaths of the deserts of the Earth into fertile soil. At any rate, I don’t see us running out of land within the next 100 years or so, and in 100 years, a lot can happen. A hundred years ago we barely knew anything about the chemical composition and structure of living matter, and look where we stand now.

 

[down_under]

I don’t think there’d be more babies, I just think there’d be less sex. I mean, the only kind that would really exist would be boring penile-vaginal sex that you have with your spouse because you feel that you have an obligation to do so. Seriously, though, if contraception had never existed then sex would probably not exist in the eyes of the public and would probably be taboo, things like homosexuality would probably be taboo/illegal, and we’d probably be less advanced since we would supposedly lack the intelligence to invent contraception (which, let’s face it, would be the first thing anyone would want to invent).

one only has to look back just a few years to see what this society would be like. And yes there were more babies and there was less sex. Our culture is saturated with sex and still somehow constantly finding a way to fit more into it. By the way, just so you know, the whole “oh he wants more SEX. I better give it to him quick so I can get some sleep.” sort of thought process where the man thinks he is never getting any and the women feels used like a cheep cigar all the time. THAT ONLY HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO USE CONTRACEPTION. It does not happen to couples who use natural family planning. partially because when there bodies are ready THEY are ready. There is no spontaneity issue with NFP.

I have to agree with you though
sex would probably not exist in the eyes of the public and would probably be taboo, things like homosexuality would probably be taboo/illegal

I just think this to some degree (not taken to extremes) would be a good thing. We could use a little dimming of the constant sex in the face of your 6 year old sort of advertising campaigns we have here. Never mind Gay Pride events. This platform often truns into a public orgy that any heterosexual person would be arrested for performing in public. (disclaimer if you dont know what orgy means you dont need to know)

 

[Catholic80]

I wanted to start this thread to mull over the implications of what a world would be like if nobody used contraception. I have relatively recently accepted contraception as immoral and I’m pondering in my head how the aversion to it would affect the world.

Please, for any non-Catholics, this is not a debate of the morality of it in itself. I’m trying to think about the effects in the wider world.

There’s a pack of different populist arguments out there for why the Catholic Church’s view on contraception is supposedly crazy. A lack of contraception helps spread AIDS; it leads to abortions; it ruins people’s sex lives. I don’t think any of those arguments hold any weight. One thing that I am a bit caught up on is that without it, the world population would explode out of control.

Now, it’s well-established that the more virulent anti-people people grossly exaggerate the dangers of overpopulation. Several parts of the world are suffering demographic decline or collapse as we speak. In many other parts, the population is starting to stabilize. We are in no immediate threat in our lifetime of the entire world looking like the Chinese northeastern seaboard. Not even close.

Still, while we can easily enough refute the above propaganda, there are a few inarguable facts we can’t deny:

• There is a finite amount of space in the world
• If married couples have more than two children on average, the population will grow
• If the above scenario is satisfied, given X amount of time, the world will become overpopulated.

Now, as we are aware, there will never come a time where the entire world will be devout, orthodox Catholic. Still, as with any moral system, Catholic morality is something that would ideally be practiced by every person, everywhere. So if the entire world’s population were to avoid contraception, would it lead to inevitable overpopulation and all the misery and destruction that comes with it? Perhaps it’s not something that would actually happen until many, many, many generations passed, but might it be the eventual result? I suppose you could say that, as with animal species, the population might eventually collapse naturally as a result of famine (similar to how insect populations explode and collapse and explode again depending on seasonal food supply), but this seems like an extremely weak and questionable refutation to the long-term idea of overpopulation. “Oh, it’s cool guys, eventually people will just start starving to death.” It’s a true enough point, but I don’t think it’s going to win over any hearts and minds. What must also be considered is how the medical revolution has affected this issue. People freely procreated in past centuries without giving the issue of overpopulation much thought. Why? Because people died exceedingly more often in the past than they do today. With the proper infrastructure and services, fatalities from various genetic and contagious diseases have plummeted to a small fraction of what they once were. Most people get old and wrinkled before they die. This is a fairly recent development.

The legalization of contraception directly led to the legalization of abortion. Contraception is basically a lie that states that sex doesn’t have to have consequences. When, despite contraception, a pregnancy occurs, suddenly, it’s “not the couple’s fault!” They used contraception, so this baby was “forced” upon them. Since it was “unplanned,” they should have every right to get rid of it.

I think there would be a lot less people having sex outside of marriage if contraception never existed. Contraception was illegal in the U.S. before 1965. The legalization of contraception birthed an ever increasing sex outside of marriage culture, and consequently, removed/greatly reduced the consequence of sex (children).

Before, people had to exercise self-control. So why not now? If the world had never invented a way to contracept, I guarantee that this world would be much more pleasant to live in now. Since people would learn very early on to practice self control, many of our sociological problems would be greatly reduced and maybe not even exist. Men would have to respect women and their monthly timing more. Teens and non-married couples would be less likely to engage in extramarital relations. And abortion would be much, much less and considered a heinous crime.

I doubt that there would be overpopulation because as humans, we learn how to adjust to what we are given. No contraception would mean a more civilized people who exercised restraint.

What would happen if it became banned today?? I think there would be a lot of rebellion.

 

[VanSensei]

The population would probably implode on itself and cause more Bangladeshes and Uttar Pradeshes - small in area but massive, almost dangerous in population density.