J
JimG
Guest
Massive population density as in New York City, Singapore, Mexico City? Often the most productive economies exist in the areas of highest population density. That’s why people migrate from rural areas to big cities.
- Status
W
weller2
Guest
You’ve omitted how they have achieved these fertility rates.
samanthabvance.wordpress.com/presentation-page/
Population collapse is only a problem because the entire economic system is based on the idea of infinite growth. From many other viewpoints, the population decrease would be actually a good thing. Currently, 12% of ice-free land is dedicated to farming and 18% of all biosphere output is food for humans. So how much room for growth is there left, really?
Another thing which has to be kept in mind is that widespread acceptance of contraception in abortion in the Western society started after WW2. Remember that WW2 has been officially started over Lebensraum – living space, or, as you prefer, natural resources. It is quite easy to imagine an alternative history where increasing population drives another conflict over Lebensraum – this time involving nuclear weapons.
I find it rather amusing that the Catholic Church views population control through contraception as an intrinsic evil, but population control through mass slaughter like Verdun or Hiroshima is justifiable under the just war theory
D
down_under
Guest
What you have to say is interesting. Strange to my ears but interesting is a good word for it. Tell me though where did the Pope sign off on Hiroshima. I don’t recall that happening. There is a certain line of reasoning that says that if we had not dropped the bombs we could not have won the war without going door to door and block to block in japan and that would have cost a LOT of lives but I don’t know the just war theory that well it could be that that argument does not work. I still don’t think anybody then or since consulted the Catholic Church in general much less the Pope specifically about the idea. I have no knowledge of your Verdun comment I will look it up. But if your hiroshima comment is this far off the mark then it very well could be that your perspective of that event is also not justifying this comment. I dont recall it being population control we were into in hiroshima I’m fairly sure we were looking to end the war. No offense intended just saying…I find it rather amusing that the Catholic Church views population control through contraception as an intrinsic evil, but population control through mass slaughter like Verdun or Hiroshima is justifiable under the just war theory
edit
I now am assuming you are referring to the tragic WWI battle that took place at Verdun. See my previous comment about Papal authority on that one. You can’t blame the Catholic Church for everything that has gone wrong in the whole of history. That aside I don’t see how either of these events were about population control much less Catholic giving the assent and the go ahead to population control. Please elaborate.
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
The current world population is currently around 7 billion. By 2050, we are looking at 10 billion, a figure that includes current rates of contraception. If we were to somehow remove contraception from this projection, I imagine that the numbers would increase (how much I can’t say; I’m not a statistician).
We live on a finite planet. There is only so much fresh water, fossil fuels, land suited for agriculture, etc. Likewise, the more people there are–and the more there are who do things like eat meat and burn oil or gas for energy–the more effluvia they create. Human activity creates pollution, in other words, and that pollution–CO2 in particular–is a big problem.
So is the problem too many people, or too many people using too many resources? I suspect the later. If we lived more carefully, and were better stewards of the world, I think our planet could sustain more humans. If we continue on the path we’ve chosen, there will be enormous suffering, especially for those who are poor and marginalized.
The issue of global warming and the impact of increased carbon loads in the atmosphere and oceans is an extraordinarily difficult issue for human beings–Americans in particular–because it brings up questions about limitations and collective actions, two things we just don’t like at all. As Bill McKibben said, you can argue about philosophy and politics and economics, but you can’t argue with chemistry and physics. Unless we change course, soon, we are in for deep troubles.
We live on a finite planet. There is only so much fresh water, fossil fuels, land suited for agriculture, etc. Likewise, the more people there are–and the more there are who do things like eat meat and burn oil or gas for energy–the more effluvia they create. Human activity creates pollution, in other words, and that pollution–CO2 in particular–is a big problem.
So is the problem too many people, or too many people using too many resources? I suspect the later. If we lived more carefully, and were better stewards of the world, I think our planet could sustain more humans. If we continue on the path we’ve chosen, there will be enormous suffering, especially for those who are poor and marginalized.
The issue of global warming and the impact of increased carbon loads in the atmosphere and oceans is an extraordinarily difficult issue for human beings–Americans in particular–because it brings up questions about limitations and collective actions, two things we just don’t like at all. As Bill McKibben said, you can argue about philosophy and politics and economics, but you can’t argue with chemistry and physics. Unless we change course, soon, we are in for deep troubles.
D
down_under
Guest
The human causing climate change through CO2 myth was exploded in 1995 when we discovered there is no link between CO2 levels and the temp of the planet. We have seen no rise in temp on the planet for over 16 years. In fact the mean temp is falling. There was a general letter to the gerenal secretary of the UN explaining this to him in writing by more scientists and experts in the field then even support this theory. CO2 causing global warming is a bad theory which according to its own statements has been dis proven by this lack of increased to with a steady increase in CO2 for the last 16 years. over 100 scientists have signed this letter you can view it here.
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/14/scientists-send-letter-un-give-futile-climate-change-battle
please stop believing everything Bill McKibben a very good JOURNALIST writes. his pay check is attached to you buying his books and he is very good at stirring things up. He is not a scientist. As far as I can tell he has no degree in science at all. Correct me if I am wrong I will listen. This is like listening to the chick from star gate tell you how possible the things on the show are and you believing her because she played a scientist on TV. These people are spouting rubbish for personal gain much like bill gates and al gore. They would like to kill 80% or so of the people on the planet and have said as much publicly. They don’t even hide this position. They are proud of this position. stop listening to these people.
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
My brother in Christ, I stopped arguing about global warming and climate change long ago. It is a dead end. The future will be what the future will be. You and I arguing about wont make a whit of difference. I wish you well.
D
down_under
Guest
oh I not arguing I am just pointing out how wrong we now know for a fact it is. No amount of argument will change this. But you did argue for global warming just 2 posts up and that was not that long ago. If you have nothing to say to defend the idea that you advocated that you wanted all of us to believe then why would you state such a thing. Have a good day fella.
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
We’re not arguing, we’re discussing! 
I did not argue ‘for’ global warming. I said that increased human populations would make that particular problem worse if we continue to consume resources at the same rate, and in the same way. My point was, I’m not going to argue if global warming, or climate change, is real or not. That ship sailed a long time ago. For those who do not believe it to be so, there is–literally–nothing I could say, or show, that will change their minds. And so we are stuck with the reality that the planet is warming, human activity bears some culpability, and that consequences of this change will be dangerous, especially for the poor and the weak.
I suspect we are drifting a bit from the OPs original question. If contraception ended, there would be more humans, and (I think) more abortions. More hunger, more misery, more disease. There would also be more families, which could be a good thing. It’s actually a hard question!
I did not argue ‘for’ global warming. I said that increased human populations would make that particular problem worse if we continue to consume resources at the same rate, and in the same way. My point was, I’m not going to argue if global warming, or climate change, is real or not. That ship sailed a long time ago. For those who do not believe it to be so, there is–literally–nothing I could say, or show, that will change their minds. And so we are stuck with the reality that the planet is warming, human activity bears some culpability, and that consequences of this change will be dangerous, especially for the poor and the weak.
I suspect we are drifting a bit from the OPs original question. If contraception ended, there would be more humans, and (I think) more abortions. More hunger, more misery, more disease. There would also be more families, which could be a good thing. It’s actually a hard question!
D
down_under
Guest
you have no rational facts to offer me that prove your case that’s why I don’t believe you. All the evidence shows that increased CO2 does not cause increased warming. Stating it as if its fact does not change the matter. The ship has sailed I wish you would just get on it please. I have showed you the work of 100 scientists in the field who proved that CO2 causing man made global warming is a fraud in the largest proportions. Those of us who don’t believe it don’t believe it because science is against it. Sorry just pointing out the obvious.We’re not arguing, we’re discussing!
I did not argue ‘for’ global warming. I said that increased human populations would make that particular problem worse if we continue to consume resources at the same rate, and in the same way. My point was, I’m not going to argue if global warming, or climate change, is real or not. That ship sailed a long time ago. For those who do not believe it to be so, there is–literally–nothing I could say, or show, that will change their minds. And so we are stuck with the reality that the planet is warming, human activity bears some culpability, and that consequences of this change will be dangerous, especially for the poor and the weak.
I suspect we are drifting a bit from the OPs original question. If contraception ended, there would be more humans, and (I think) more abortions. More hunger, more misery, more disease. There would also be more families, which could be a good thing. It’s actually a hard question!
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
The world is full of information, down under. I leave it to you to explore it all.
Peace, friend.
Peace, friend.
M
manualman
Guest
The professional demographers and statisticians at the UN who compiled that projection freely admit that they flat out assumed that after a decade or two adjustment, long term TFR (total fertility rates) in the nations currently below replacement would rebound to 2.1 (dead even replacement rate) and stay there. This assumption was made in SPITE of the clear empirical evidence of the historical record in which cultures where people are wealthy and educated and contraception is cheap and socially respectable have never rebounded back to replacement rate and stayed there. Those countries tend to stabilize around a 1.5 TFR, which if it spreads worldwide (and it rapidly is), will leave Earth with a population less than half our current size within 100 years.
M
manualman
Guest
samanthabvance.wordpress.com/presentation-page/
- You’ve omitted how they have achieved these fertility rates.
- Another thing which has to be kept in mind is that widespread acceptance of contraception in abortion in the Western society started after WW2. Remember that WW2 has been officially started over Lebensraum – living space, or, as you prefer, natural resources. It is quite easy to imagine an alternative history where increasing population drives another conflict over Lebensraum – this time involving nuclear weapons.
- I find it rather amusing that the Catholic Church views population control through contraception as an intrinsic evil, but population control through mass slaughter like Verdun or Hiroshima is justifiable under the just war theory
- If you’re claiming that population was controlled via prostitution, I’m not going to be able to respond because I’ll be laughing too hard. Prostitutes get pregnant as easily as anybody else. I can’t comment on the religious claims of that article since they relate to protestant England of the day and I’m not up on it. Could have some merit, but sounds suspiciously like anti-Christian scapegoating. But the actual way low fertility was achieved pre-pill/pre-latex was fairly mundane. Humans are mammals. Mammals make fairly observable symptoms of fertility. Back in those days even urban people weren’t more than a generation or two removed from animal husbandry. They were smarter than most people think. We think we’re smart because we can buy hybrid cars and iphones. But most of us are far dumber than our ancestors. Our technology often makes us lazy and ignorant while they were savvy and observant.
- WW2 was started because of foolish terms for ending WW1. Had a fair and just treaty of Versailles been offered, history would today be saying “Hitler who?” He’d be just another anonymous nutjob that everybody ignored.
- Silly strawman attack. Nobody asked the catholic church if Hiroshima was a ‘just war’ action and I dare you to show us documentation that she ruled it so. You can’t because you’re blowing smoke.
L
Layp3rs0n
Guest
Well as Catholics we know that in the End Jesus will come back, right? What has to happen first? “the full number of gentiles will come in.” Look, many countries are below replacement levels. Well if we lived a this hypothetical contraceptive world, maybe we would have already filled the full number of gentiles, the Jews would convert and then we could finally get Jesus back, a New Heaven and a New Earth and sin would cease to be! We might actually be prolonging our misery in a world of sin by NOT reproducing.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Neither the events at Verdun nor at Hiroshima qualify as “just war” under the just war theory, which forbids that innocent persons be directly targeted.I find it rather amusing that the Catholic Church views population control through contraception as an intrinsic evil, but population control through mass slaughter like Verdun or Hiroshima is justifiable under the just war theory
Perhaps you are confusing the Church’s teachings with the apologetics of American patriotism.
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
So, with regard to the Church’s teachings on contraception (Humanae Vitae, I think), why do you think so many Catholics just ignore them? As I understand it, the teaching has pretty much been ignored from the beginning, at least in Western and developed countries.
I truly don’t know much about the history. My grandfather used to joke that he had “five rhythm method babies,” so there is that!
I truly don’t know much about the history. My grandfather used to joke that he had “five rhythm method babies,” so there is that!
M
manualman
Guest
Humanae Vitae wasn’t a new teaching, it was a reiteration of a 2,000 year old teaching. People so inclined have been trying all sorts of contraceptive tricks for millennia to have sex divorced from babies. Christianity repudiated those practices from its very beginnings and there was very little theological dissent from that teaching for over 1,960 years! So let’s not be having talk of “ignored from the beginning.” That’s simply self-delusion.
Why do I think so many catholics ignore it? Same reason so many catholics ignore church teaching on telling lies, being selfish, caring for the needy, premarital sex, the list is nearly endless. Jesus died on the cross because of our sins and there’s no shortage of them. Since the 60’s, we like to pretend that as a people we’re fine “just as we are.” We’re not. We need a Savior. All of us.
T
TK421
Guest
I’m glad that this thread has produced discussion. I do have a few comments to make.
- I appreciate the responses that talk about trusting in God and realizing that a natural moral law would not lead to our ruin. I accept this, but of course this is only going to carry weight among those of an orthodox mind, and I’m curious in exploring the inductive rather than the deductive reasons for why a world without contraception is manageable.
- I’d prefer for this thread not to get wrapped up in a debate over climate change. The truth of the matter is that there is a great deal of uncertainty amongst authentic, truth-seeking scientists about the impact of humanity on the climate and the extent of its severity. While climate change is widely accepted (among knowledgeable people in the field) to be true, the degree of it is something that remains heavily contended. I think it is enough to say that climate change exists and that humans play a role in the world around them. This much at least is obvious and humans have been altering the climate around them for thousands of years.
- I want this thread to stay focused on the absolute long-term. I agree that, if anything, the world is facing a collapse of population in the future rather than an explosion. But this thread is speculating on a world where contraception (and subsequently, sexual morality in general) has been banished to the shadows. Catholicism has successfully supplanted itself in every corner of the world.
J
JimG
Guest
This is clearly the problem which faces the world in the near future–depopulation, not overpopulation. In view of that impending threat, which can lead to economic and social regression, I find it hard to get excited about speculating on a world without contraception. There has always been contraception of some sort, but it was the invention of the latex condom and especially the introduction of the birth control pill around 1960 which caused an explosion in the use of contraception. The effects of that have been universally bad, as has been documented in Mary Eberstadt’s book, “Adam and Eve After the Pill.” For a look a largely precontraceptive world, look at the era of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
M
Michaeljc4
Guest
I saw the documentary “Demographic Winter” a few years back, and I am aware of falling fertility rates in industrialized (or in our case, post industrialized) nations. I thought that in areas in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, birth rates were accelerating, no declining. In other words, America and places like that have a below-replacement birth rate, but populous countries like India were churning out babies like gangbusters. This is incorrect?
J
JimG
Guest
A quote from the CIA Factbook:
“Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.”
Here is a list of nations by TFR total fertility rate from highest to lowest. It must be remembered that a nation with a high TFR will not necessarily experience population growth, due to other factors, such as life expectancy or the prevalence of disease. Of the 224 nations listed, about 126 are at or below a TFR of 2.25, with only 58 above 3.0. A depopulation trend, once started, can proceed rather quickly, and is hard to reverse, as Russia can attest. We can continue to worry about overpopulation, but I think that the most serious problem facing humanity will lie in the opposite direction.
“Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.”
Here is a list of nations by TFR total fertility rate from highest to lowest. It must be remembered that a nation with a high TFR will not necessarily experience population growth, due to other factors, such as life expectancy or the prevalence of disease. Of the 224 nations listed, about 126 are at or below a TFR of 2.25, with only 58 above 3.0. A depopulation trend, once started, can proceed rather quickly, and is hard to reverse, as Russia can attest. We can continue to worry about overpopulation, but I think that the most serious problem facing humanity will lie in the opposite direction.
- Status