Hypothetical: A world without contraception

[TK421]

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 deprive 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.

Weller, I think this entire post is bogus and borders on conspiracy theory. There was not some grand objective behind WW1 and WW2 to decrease the population, and if there was, it was a pretty poor objective. More people died from a flu epidemic in the 1920s than they did from WW2. The actual dent in the human population from wars is very minor. Besides, if population control was the goal, you would target the lives of women, not men. Outside of a Christian context, you only need a relatively small handful of men and then plenty of women for them to impregnate.

You’re not proving anything that isn’t already obvious when you point out that living space was a major talking point by the Nazi party. Of course it was. It’s a euphemism designed to make something that is evil and hateful sound as though it were moral. People continue to successfully do it to the present day, i.e. “pro choice”, “marriage equality”, etc. Fascist Italy gave similar rhetoric when talking about restoring themselves like what they were in the days of ancient Rome. It’s not as though Germans were starving to death in mass and desperately needed more land; most of their economic hardships were attributed to hyperinflation and trying to manage with the terms of the Versailles Treaty (a treaty that I do believe was wicked and oppressive). It was pep talk designed to serve as a false justification for war. Just because people fight over resources doesn’t mean that they need those resources. It means that they want them. Germany was fighting a world war. Of course they seized oil fields and natural resources. What is that suppose to prove?

 

[weller2]

Weller, I think this entire post is bogus and borders on conspiracy theory. There was not some grand objective behind WW1 and WW2 to decrease the population, and if there was, it was a pretty poor objective.

That’s a misintereptation of what I wrote.

I did not say that wars are INTENTIONALLY started with the goal of reducing population. I said that wars (1) happen when population exceeds its resource base and (2) reduce population. Therefore, war is a population control measure – it’s just not a measure that is usually invoked conciously by someone. In other words, war is a force of nature.

More people died from a flu epidemic in the 1920s than they did from WW2. The actual dent in the human population from wars is very minor.

Maybe globally, but impact of WW2 in Europe is easily seen in demographic data. The population did not recover to pre-war levels until 1960s:

It’s not as though Germans were starving to death in mass and desperately needed more land; most of their economic hardships were attributed to hyperinflation and trying to manage with the terms of the Versailles Treaty (a treaty that I do believe was wicked and oppressive).

Versailles Treaty boiled down to Germany paying copious amounts of money to France, which caused German economy to collapse (and yes, when the economy collapses, you have nothing to eat – the food becomes too expensive for you to buy). Money directly corresponds to resources; before Nixon, money was equivalent to gold, nowadays, money has an oil equivalent. So the German payments for France were nothing else then resource transfer from German population to French population, as a result of a lost war.

German economy, being heavily industrialized, needed money (gold) to buy mineral resources needed for the industry which weren’t available locally. But when the gold started going to France instead, the whole economy started to collapse. Germans realized that they will starve if things continue, so they (1) stopped the payments and (2) confiscated wealth (gold) from one section of their population (Jews) and redistributed it among ethnic Germans. Then they (3) built up the army and (4) set out to the East to acquire resource base (exterminating native population in the process).

If you analyze the situation from the point of view of a German after WW1, the above is the only logical thing they could do. And they did.

Germany was fighting a world war. Of course they seized oil fields and natural resources. What is that suppose to prove?

Germany was not fighting a world war, Germany was fighting a war entirely in the European theatre.

This is a map of German advance in 1942:



You have to realize that when the 1942 season started (due to climate, Germans could only advance between May and November), they were 200km from Moscow. If the goal was to conquer Soviet Union for ideological rasons, then they would have gone straight for Moscow. Instead, they opened offensive towards Caucasus, in order to secure the oil fields. This has allowed Russians to drag them into proctracted combat at Stalingrad, directly leading to the German defeat. Had they went for Moscow in 1942, they would have won the war.

WW2 was a German attempt at a resource grab, ideology has been designed to justify that – not the other way around.

 

[manualman]

Wow, weller. So close, but so far. The desire for resources certainly underlies war in many cases, I’ll grant that for sure. But there are more layers to the onion! You note that resource desire underlies ideology oftentime. Agreed, but underneath resource desire is greed and ambition more often than true need. Europe in the 1930’s was not remotely “overpopulated” to the extent that war was inevitable. That’s a Malthusian fantasy.

What you had was a festering soup of long time resentments, ethnic hard feelings, envy, greed, power lust and political/economic turmoil. Hitler found a way to align them all to serve his own megalomaniacal interests. To say that Germany did not wage a world war in the 30’s and 40’s is beyond the pale. Have you no knowledge of the Axis powers treaties among Germany, Italy and Japan? No awareness of the North African Nazi campaigns?

In short, you aren’t digging deep enough looking for motivations. Few wars have been fought over basic needs. To the extent that resources are involved they are about desire, greed and power lust, not need.

 

[down_under]

I am sorry to say but I find many of the attempts to justify the overpopulation narrative not justified by fact. The UN estimates were faulty from the beginning and we know this now. Europe is literally dying out because of such all time low birth rates. Lets not forget China’s demographic problems thanks to there one child policy. They have destroyed so many lives in the attempt to do what your people are advocating. 2 children really I have four zhade is 16 but jasslyn is only 7, carys is only 5, and cynara is only 2. Tell me which two must I kill to get down to two kids so I don’t burden the rest of you with my overage.

Oh you don’t like that thats not fair you say. If you are going to advocate these ideas then as the chinese found out sooner or later you have to hold the lady down on the table and kill her 8 month old child in her womb without her permission. You have to fine people a years pay because they refused to have an abortion and the police “missed” her. You have to refuse people basic health care because they are child number 2 or 3. No school for you little girl we don’t care how smart you are. This is racism at its core. It is arrogant selfishness to say “we must reduce our birth rates” When you really mean someone else must reduce there birth rates so you can live as you please for a little longer. And it is other people who bear the burden of US policy. other people like africa and asia. Again we see foreign policy too often attached to population control agendas.

This is horrible behavior and any free thinking person should see it for what it is. Racism plain and simple.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Lets not forget China’s demographic problems thanks to there one child policy.

One thing that is never discussed in conjunction with this is that this policy was preceded by a “have as many children as humanly possible” policy. Obviously, that wasn’t a success, otherwise they would have continued that, and in fact was the complete opposite. There are many people in their middle age in China that have 10 or more siblings.

Obviously, I don’t agree with how they are currently handling the situation, but China does have resource problems. They are a resource-rich country, yet the are already below recommended averages in such areas at water supplies. When every country becomes like China, where they have to start relying on other’s resources, we will have a major worldwide problem, unlike the local problems we have today.

 

[down_under]

One thing that is never discussed in conjunction with this is that this policy was preceded by a “have as many children as humanly possible” policy. Obviously, that wasn’t a success, otherwise they would have continued that, and in fact was the complete opposite. There are many people in their middle age in China that have 10 or more siblings.

Obviously, I don’t agree with how they are currently handling the situation, but China does have resource problems. They are a resource-rich country, yet the are already below recommended averages in such areas at water supplies. When every country becomes like China, where they have to start relying on other’s resources, we will have a major worldwide problem, unlike the local problems we have today.

That is a good point and maybe people should take these things into consideration before they start telling people one way or another how many kids they should have. I am glad to say in live in a country and believe in a religion that will allow me to have as many kids as I choose. be it many or few. I do not however agree with your necessary assumption that every country will become like china in there demographics. You just pointed out that the only reason China has this problem is that they told everyone they must have kids, and then refused them the right to leave the area if they wanted to. In short China has worked very hard for a long time to have the problems that it is having. I see no other country on the globe doing what China did to have such a population demographic. In fact as mentioned earlier most countries are having the other problem right now. To small of a birth rate not enough kids to support the elderly they have. The answer we need today is more kids not less.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I am glad to say in live in a country and believe in a religion that will allow me to have as many kids as I choose.

I don’t know if your user name is indicative of where you live (Australia), but if you do count yourself amongst the lucky. Australia is blessed with lots of resources, and a relatively low population given the amount of resources.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

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.

I like this response