Hypothetical: A world without contraception

[manualman]

…but populous countries like India were churning out babies like gangbusters. This is incorrect?

That is incorrect. You are correct that third world countries like India still have TFRs above replacement rate, but are incorrect that TFR is increasing there. I’m not aware that TFRs are increasing anywhere, actually. Even in nations with high TFR’s the trend is down, not up.

As I said above, that’s a natural part of the demographic transition that long predates modern contraception. TFR naturally drops from the 5-7 common in pre-industrial societies to 2-2.5 in mature first world urban peoples (pre-modern contraception). It’s when you add in modern contraception to prosperous urban societies that TFR drops to more like 1.5 or less.

 

[tafan]

1. 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.

TK421, excellent thread, I am late to the party (and have not reviewed all responses,BTW) But, in keeping with your worth while goal for discussion, I would like to back up to this part of your original post:

… 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.

1. obvious
2. Not quite accurate, but you are close enough for discussion sake, lets assume it is true
3. Despite you saying it can’t be denied, I disagree. At least I think I do. We really can’t go on without defining what it means for the world to be over-populated. While over-population is a term that has been thrown around a lot, a proper definition is needed.

Would you agree with this: world over-population : there is a global shortage of a necessary resource(s) for mankind’s continued survival at a given level of population

 

[Michaeljc4]

Would you agree with this: world over-population : there is a global shortage of a necessary resource(s) for mankind’s continued survival at a given level of population

I would add that pollution that results from a population that’s consuming too many resources should be a part of the definition. Our oceans are filling with plastic, our air is filling with carbon, and our clean fresh water supplies are dwindling. Along with ‘not enough’ there is an element of ‘too much’ when it comes to waste. Overpopulation isn’t just raw numbers; it’s impact on the environment, too.

 

[TK421]

Would you agree with this: world over-population : there is a global shortage of a necessary resource(s) for mankind’s continued survival at a given level of population

I would add that pollution that results from a population that’s consuming too many resources should be a part of the definition. Our oceans are filling with plastic, our air is filling with carbon, and our clean fresh water supplies are dwindling. Along with ‘not enough’ there is an element of ‘too much’ when it comes to waste. Overpopulation isn’t just raw numbers; it’s impact on the environment, too.

Which ties back to its impact on humanity itself. If the ecosystem is crippled, humanity will suffer. There are always going to be more effective ways of using resources, but every person is a consumer.

And yes, we’re looking at overpopulation as a point where humanity is unable to sustain itself. Also, for the purpose of the thread, we’re not considering an inevitable famine to be a realistic solution to regulate population. An apologist probably wouldn’t try to use that argument.

 

[Michaeljc4]

In nature, overpopulation results in either disease or starvation. I wouldn’t want either thing for any person on earth! We are animals, but we are much more than animals. We can do a hell of a lot better than species die-off.

 

[tafan]

I would add that pollution that results from a population that’s consuming too many resources should be a part of the definition. Our oceans are filling with plastic, our air is filling with carbon, and our clean fresh water supplies are dwindling. Along with ‘not enough’ there is an element of ‘too much’ when it comes to waste. Overpopulation isn’t just raw numbers; it’s impact on the environment, too.

Overpopulation is not just raw numbers? Well, we have to define it in some precise fashion or we will get no where. What does “consuming too many resources” mean? I would say it was included in my definition, since a resource is not sufficient to support the world’s then population.

However, you are defining it as part of the overall effect on the environment. That is difficult for me to accept and believe we can be precise and have a constructive argument. Unless one says that the impact to the environment causes a global resource shortage necessary for our survival.

But just to say “impact on the environment has to be taken into account”: too broad. For example: “our oceans are filling with plastic”. Reallly? We likely have put way too much plastic in the oceans, but the oceans are neither filling with plastic, not does it in any way imply we are overpopulated. Diddo with carbon in the air (at least for now) Fresh water supply? that one you are on the right track, its a resource issue.

You must have a more precise definition, or else one can easily conclude we are presently over-populated. Which is where these discussions always end up lacking such a definition. 6 billion people are a lot of folks, they have an impact on the environment. There can be no argument about that. The same was true for 1 billion.

 

[tafan]

Which ties back to its impact on humanity itself. If the ecosystem is crippled, humanity will suffer. There are always going to be more effective ways of using resources, but every person is a consumer.

But on a global scale? correct? You did say start the thread about world overpopulation. This is a critical point in the discussion.

As to ecosystem impact: yes it can have a result on impact on resources. So I do not think you are disagreeing with my definition.

 

[TK421]

Population growth is a major variable in the world’s economic health. Overpopulation would occur when, because of the hardship of supporting a population over X amount of area, the negative consequences of a further increased population outweigh the positive consequences. The negative consequences would be a lack of resources, which would mean famine and death. So in that case, it would be better to suffer the negative consequences of demographic decline than the negative consequences of continued growth.

 

[tafan]

Population growth is a major variable in the world’s economic health. Overpopulation would occur when, because of the hardship of supporting a population over X amount of area, the negative consequences of a further increased population outweigh the positive consequences. The negative consequences would be a lack of resources, which would mean famine and death. So in that case, it would be better to suffer the negative consequences of demographic decline than the negative consequences of continued growth.

So we are settled on it being a resource issue.

But, so you want to change the discussion from being global in nature to localized? The original post and the name of the thread seemed quite clear about it being global overpopulation. Maybe I am being too picky, but it does seem to make a difference.

In a hypothetical world without contraception, if a particular country was facing over-population (and this is much more realistic scenario than global population, which I doubt could actually happen), there are many possible solutions. First of all, a localized over-population problem is likely temporary in nature. At least history would indicate this is the case. If you allow freedom of migration (which is basic Church teaching BTW), then many people will move before they starve. And things will balance out. Furthermore, localized resource shortages are often caused by political issues (eg revolutions) or natural disasters; not by over population per se. Even though the scenario likely fits your description above. These can be solved, to a large extent, via international aide. Lots of ways to deal with localized resource shortages.

So I have no more problem envisioning a world that can deal with localized severe resource shortages than I have envisioning a world that is contraception free.

 

[jmcrae]

Which ties back to its impact on humanity itself. If the ecosystem is crippled, humanity will suffer. There are always going to be more effective ways of using resources, but every person is a consumer.

Every person is also potentially a worker and a creative problem-solver. There are all kinds of ways to solve basic problems, and most of them involve multiplying the sources of the required resource.

In the 1970s, in the oil shortage crisis, there was no more oil to be found. Instead, the problem was solved when someone created a much more efficient car that only needed a small amount of oil to function.

Suddenly, the same amount of oil is sufficient to supply a whole world of energy efficient vehicles, for decades to come.

 

[TK421]

As I said above, that’s a natural part of the demographic transition that long predates modern contraception. TFR naturally drops from the 5-7 common in pre-industrial societies to 2-2.5 in mature first world urban peoples (pre-modern contraception). It’s when you add in modern contraception to prosperous urban societies that TFR drops to more like 1.5 or less.

I glanced over this. Do you know the reasons for why TFR drops to the 2-2.5 range without any contraception in a post-industrial environment? (I somehow doubt a prostitution crisis in London accounts for it) Is it because of people getting married later in life versus as teenagers? A drop from 5-7 to 2-2.5 is pretty enormous.

 

[tafan]

I glanced over this. Do you know the reasons for why TFR drops to the 2-2.5 range without any contraception in a post-industrial environment? (I somehow doubt a prostitution crisis in London accounts for it) Is it because of people getting married later in life versus as teenagers? A drop from 5-7 to 2-2.5 is pretty enormous.

I think the data is rather dubious. I suspect the the countries it is based on were predominantly Protestant, northern European, and the United States.

I would argue that in a contraception free world, with advance technology, widespread use of NFP would be so easy that you would not see that high of reproduction rates. It would take little more training than current methods of ABC, and while on a micro level might not work perfectly, on a macro level reproduction rates would not continue at high rates leading to a global over-population crisis.

 

[manualman]

I glanced over this. Do you know the reasons for why TFR drops to the 2-2.5 range without any contraception in a post-industrial environment? (I somehow doubt a prostitution crisis in London accounts for it) Is it because of people getting married later in life versus as teenagers? A drop from 5-7 to 2-2.5 is pretty enormous.

Demographers have wrestled with this question for years. I’m an amateur, not a pro on the matter, but I’ve read a bit. It gets into complex issues of sociology, economics, sexuality and spirituality, so there are precious few (if any) who really understand it well.

Pre-industrial urban populations have high mortality rates and rely on manual labor for survival (farming). In such societies, having more children very quickly becomes an economic positive benefit because even small kids can more than earn their keep on the farm. There are few wider social structures and people who don’t successfully raise children to responsible adulthood face the very real possibility of starving to death when they get too old and weak to farm capably by themselves. Kids are the social security system. Kids also die off at alarming rates, so even from a purely cold economic view of it, more is better.

In urban wealthy societies, kids are an economic burden on the parents for many years (more all the time in western countries). Urban societies are cash economies, rather than subsistence economies, so it is often easier to save up financial resources for old age rather than relying on children to sustain you. Instead of spiritual, cultural and economic forces all aligning towards big families, the spiritual and economic forces become opposed to each other and the culture becomes confused. When cheap and easy contraception is introduced, the spiritual inclinations towards bigger families is literally sterilized and societies go into sub-replacement fertility patterns. Little influence towards large families remains at all at that point.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Overpopulation is not just raw numbers? Well, we have to define it in some precise fashion or we will get no where.

Overpopulation is not simply raw numbers, and it will never be even if you attempt to force an argument in that direction. That’s not the way it works.

What does “consuming too many resources” mean? I would say it was included in my definition, since a resource is not sufficient to support the world’s then population.

Simple if there are not enough resources in a particular environment for a species to survive, population decreases. A simple and obvious example deals with large carnivores that require large amounts of land. However, there are also human examples. There are some extremely isolated tribes that have relatively small populations in the hundreds. That’s an incredibly small number given the amount of time they are believed to have existed in that environment. Simply math would indicate that some of these populations should be in the millions, but the resources in the environment have limited those populations.

You must have a more precise definition, or else one can easily conclude we are presently over-populated. Which is where these discussions always end up lacking such a definition. 6 billion people are a lot of folks, they have an impact on the environment. There can be no argument about that. The same was true for 1 billion.

Stating that a species population is limited to the resources available in its environment is precise enough. You probably what every quantized into exact amounts and exact cause and effect. That’s not going to happen, nor does it matter.

Our situation now is different than in the past, though. Current population levels can only be supported by stored energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) that are being used at
a rate incredibly faster than they be reproduced. Eventually that will correct itself.

 

[tafan]

Simple if there are not enough resources in a particular environment for a species to survive, population decreases. A simple and obvious example deals with large carnivores that require large amounts of land. However, there are also human examples. There are some extremely isolated tribes that have relatively small populations in the hundreds. That’s an incredibly small number given the amount of time they are believed to have existed in that environment. Simply math would indicate that some of these populations should be in the millions, but the resources in the environment have limited those populations.

.

Well, maybe I do not understand the difference between our definitions. That seems very much inline with mine. Different wording, but basically about resources being able to support the population.

Our situation now is different than in the past, though. Current population levels can only be supported by stored energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) that are being used at
a rate incredibly faster than they be reproduced. Eventually that will correct itself

That is obvious, but says nothing about over-population. For example, we have no shortage of these stored energy sources. And if a shortage does come, it will correct itself, and every resource shortage does (almost always has without globally negative consequences). What is the problem?

 

[TK421]

Our situation now is different than in the past, though. Current population levels can only be supported by stored energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) that are being used at
a rate incredibly faster than they be reproduced. Eventually that will correct itself.

I’m not sure how much that really relates to contraception though. In the past, people primarily used charcoal as a fuel source, and fuel was mostly used for heat or for cooking. Now it’s fossil fuels, and its uses are much more expansive. Like you said, our primary energy source is stored energy in the Earth. New technologies, especially recent technologies in harvesting fuels from rock, have majorly widened our opportunities, but they are still finite and they replenish themselves at an extremely slow rate. We’re just burning through an energy deposit that has been accumulating for over a billion years. But there are still plenty of renewable energy sources on the planet. One of them that is able to still yield high amounts of energy is nuclear, although nuclear energy can be unpopular because of the responsibility attached to it. Biofuels, wind, solar, tide current, etc., harvest comparably weak amounts of energy, but they are at least energy sources that we can always count on. There is not a time window on these energy sources disappearing, except when the sun explodes, and they have been getting gradually more efficient since their first prototype.

In order to look at how well we could sustain ourselves without fossil fuels, you’d have to project yourself many generations into the future, and nobody can predict what our energy sources will be like at that point anyway.

 

[manualman]

In order to look at how well we could sustain ourselves without fossil fuels, you’d have to project yourself many generations into the future, and nobody can predict what our energy sources will be like at that point anyway.

Bingo. Malthusian pessimists always assume that ingenuity won’t produce significant innovations in spite of the stunning record of history. Fossil fuel use will be supplanted when something superior comes along. Granted, it may happen faster if governments stop artificially suppressing the real costs of fossil fuel use (wars, pollution cleanups, etc funded via tax revenues).

Wait, this is a tangent! Man I’m a sucker for tangents…

 

[tafan]

…

Biofuels, wind, solar, tide current, etc., harvest comparably weak amounts of energy, but they are at least energy sources that we can always count on. .
…

Actually, at least as far as solar goes, it is not comparatively weak, it is massive. Its just we haven’t figured out how to utilize it yet. BTW, BioFuels is actually part of this.

And despite the fact that Exxon has cut back its research into it, algae growth is a very good candidate for the eventual utilization of solar energy. It has the potential to produce a lot of stored energy in a relatively small amount of space, being much more efficient than any current type of solar power (if one excludes biofuels such as ethanol).

There is not a shortage of energy: ie the earth works, it always has. Its just that we need to figure out how to convert the energy available to the type we use and to store it.

Of course, almost all of the alternative energy technologies that we are chasing now: exiting biofuels, wind, solar, are doomed to failure IMO. Or at least relative failure.

But we have a lot of time to figure this out, we are not running out of the petroleum energy sources we currently rely on. It is just that we have run out of “cheap” petroleum. That is not a bad thing, as it now becomes economically feasible to develop the others.

 

[weller2]

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.

Sure. You have to realize that war is a method of population control.

If a human population living in a given area grows above the number of people this area can support (at a given technology and luxury level), the leaders of that population tend to get the idea of increasing their living space by expanding into the neighboring area. The neighboring area, however, tends to be populated by another group of humans, which usually will not like the idea. That results in something we call war.

The war will kill some humans on both sides, thus decreasing population and resource stress. Further, if the attacking group gains victory, it will subjugate the losing side – which basically amounts to forced resource transfer from the losing side to the winning side. However, such transfer will deprieve the losing side of its resources, leading to drop in its population (starvation). So either way, the combined population of the areas involved decreases.

As human populations increased in absolute numbers, the efficiency of war killing had to be increased – with larger population, you have to kill more humas to achieve the same percentage drop. If you study the battle at Verdun, then you see it was not a battle – it was a slaughterhouse. Both sides had a large excess of young men, so they drafted 16-year-olds by thousands, loaded them on the trains, and shipped to the front line, to be killed by machine guns. The strategy only become unviable after both sides started running out of cannon fodder and money for bullets.

The survivors of this madness came back home completely messed up, and went on to form a Nazi party in Germany. When Germany again run into resource limits, they decided to solve the problem by doing Verdun on steroids. Contrary to what many people say, WW2 had a lot of characteristics of a resource war:

• The Nazi propaganda openly said that the purpose of the war is Lebensraum (living space)
• On the eastern front, Germans attempted to capture oil fields in Azerbeidjan, diverting large forces to the South, instead of throwing everything towards Moscow
• In occupied Poland, Germans engaged in wholesale robbery of everything transportable (including able-bodied men, who were sent to Germany as slave labor)
• Jews sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau were told that they are going to be relocated to Ukraine, and instructed to take their precious belongings with them; extermination at Auschwitz had been organized so that everything valuable they had was recovered

Acceptance of contraconception in Europe after WW2 has led to a situation where European states (for the first time in last several hundred years) have no “demographic excess” which would force someone to start a war.

Now, the most controversial part. Under Catholic doctrine, contraception is never permissible (CCC #2370). War, on the other hand, is permissible under certain circumstances (CCC #2309). In other words, if faced with a choice: contraception now or war in 20 year, Catholics should choose war.

 

[weller2]

1. 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.

1. There’s no record of prostitutes having a lot of children – quite the contrary in fact. Pregnancy is bad for business.
2. Even if prostitutes get pregnant as easily as anybody else, you get less pregnancies for the same number of sexual acts – one cannot get pregnant twice at the same time. So by redirecting men’s sexual activity from their wives to prostitutes, you decrease the number of pregnancies.

European literature from 19th century is pretty clear on the scale of prostitution.