If the world were overpopulated, what would be the Catholic response?

[Speedmaster80]

Contrary to what is posted here, the world is becoming overpopulated, with eleven billion people forecast by the end of this century. We are in a crisis! We can only feed our present population because of fossil-fuel fertilizers. We are overfishing the seas. And when the fossil fuels run out, so will the food.

The same use of fossil fuels is the decisive factor in man-made global warming, which will be a catastrophe for humans but more importantly for the planet, with droughts, dangerous storms, floods and fires.

The West should take the lead in reducing population, because North Americans and Europeans are consuming beyond their means.

The Church will have to adapt to this new reality, how they will couch their response theologically remains to be seen.

 

[BobCatholic]

In the Catholic viewpoint, the world can never be “overpopulated”

In order for there to be “overpopulation” there must be “surplus” people. And surplus people have zero value and must be eliminated.

The Catholic Church teaches the inherent dignity of every human person.

Every. Single. One.

Isn’t it interesting that secularists/leftists who claim the world is overpopulated never seem to count themselves as part of the “overage” and volunteer to commit suicide to help make things “better” (as defined by them)? But they are quick to push for policies that seek to reduce population by whatever means necessary because they see EVERYONE ELSE as the “surplus”

 

[nute]

America and the world as a whole lacks an adequate energy plan going forward. The Earth may support a 100% increase in population, but not if we don’t change how we procure energy and distribute vital resources.

Overpopulation is not defined and that is a major problem. I’m going to assume that overpopulation exists if there is a shortage of: food, water, or shelter that cannot be addressed by redistributing resources.

Technology exists today to cheaply split water and use the resulting hydrogen and oxygen to release energy and distribute drinking water. See Interstate Traveler, a
maglev train concept where the trains are indirectly powered by the sun.

The greatest most obvious threat to the world’s potentially unstable population is
climate change. Whether the world is warming or we are heading for the next ice
age I am uncertain. We cannot exploit coal and Oil as we have in the past
because of the environmental consequences.

We need hydrogen fuel cell land and sea vehicles. We will probably have to use more natural gas and build more nuclear power plants. The technology to procure the energy needed to support the world’s current population and possibly twice as many people exists. We need to protect forests and grasslands so that the earth’s climate doesn’t change too fast on us. There are many wars raging in the world, there is a danger that
we will wipe ourselves out.

 

[melekali]

While I personally don’t buy the notion that the Earth has surpassed its carrying capacity (far from it), I think there are a fair number of people who mean well in believing this, but are tackling the problem with immoral means (ie contraception and abortion).

Let’s for the sake of argument say that the world is indeed overpopulated, or will be in the near future. What would be a moral and legitimate way to handle the problem?

To share and love as God commands.

 

[lynnvinc]

While I personally don’t buy the notion that the Earth has surpassed its carrying capacity (far from it), I think there are a fair number of people who mean well in believing this, but are tackling the problem with immoral means (ie contraception and abortion).

Let’s for the sake of argument say that the world is indeed overpopulated, or will be in the near future. What would be a moral and legitimate way to handle the problem?

If the world were overpopulated then people would be starving and there wouldn’t be excess food/resources to help them, without seriously harming other people.

I guess the initial Catholic response should be to share, even if it means one would be sacrificing and suffering malnutrition to do so. However, it probably would be to let others starve, as long as one is strong enough to hold on to one’s own resources or wrest them from others. I don’t think religion makes a whole lot of difference – some, but not a whole lot. There would be the few Catholic saints who would sacrifice themselves for others, and the rest who would not.

Luckily we are not at that stage yet. There is plenty of food for everyone, and yet we horde it, waste it, and turn it into fuel for our Hummers, and let others starve. Imagine what the situation will be when our ever increasing population meets our ever less viable world, being harmed by environmental factors, such as climate change, on its way to being totally trashed and may unviable.

I don’t know when that point will come – when there really won’t be enough food & subsistence resources for all people (even if everyone sacrifices their gluttony). It all depends. I’m thinking it could come within this century, maybe toward the end. If not then, then surely by 2200. Unless…unless…as the Lorax said.

 

[tafan]

1. In the long term–and if everyone were having 3-5 kids (which isn’t even that huge a family, but I’m giving a conservative estimate) and there was little infant mortality, it wouldn’t be that long a term–it wouldn’t matter. It’s a finite planet. At some point there’s going to be overpopulation, period. I don’t understand why this basic mathematical point escapes people.

Edwin

Oh really, how do you know what the planet can and cannot support? It wouldn’t be that long term? Well, if every couple has 3-5 kids, then the population would doublt in 50years; it would then possibly double again in 50 years. That is assuming that there is absolutely NO mortality before the age of approximately 40. That would mean we had done really well as a species. No war, no famine, no epidemics, cancer cured, heart disease cured, diabetes cured. All the food processing would be clear and perfect (no more e coli outbreaks), sanitation and water systems working perfectly. And every man and woman on earth gets married and stayed married.

I would image in that “perfect world” the planet would be able to support A LOT of people. 4 times now? That would be no problem.

 

[tafan]

I will say it again, define overpopulation. You cannot address a hypothetically broad question. Define what you consider over-population and a proper response can then be presented.
All of you people who consider it a possibility, please tell us more precisely what it will entail.

 

[interestedman]

There are a limited amount of resources in the world. At some point there would be too many people unless there were some serious technological advances.

 

[interestedman]

I will say it again, define overpopulation. You cannot address a hypothetically broad question. Define what you consider over-population and a proper response can then be presented.
All of you people who consider it a possibility, please tell us more precisely what it will entail.

Lack of resources. Famine, lack of clean water, lack of fuel, etc. I guess overpopulation would sort itself out though because a lot of people would die and the population would go down again. But you have to be extremely naive to believe that the earth’s resources could support an unlimited number of people as some people in this thread seem to think.

 

[tafan]

There are a limited amount of resources in the world. At some point there would be too many people unless there were some serious technological advances.

Which resouce would be a problem? when? where? How will overpopulation come about?

All resources will not run short at the same time. As a given resource is stretched, the economy and technology will adjust around this. It has happened time and time again throughout history. Look at the charcoal industry in mid 19th century England, there is a good example. Whalte oil is another example. Those were energy commodities the early industrial age were completely dependent on. Seems strange today.

How about oil today? Certainly all of the cheap and easy oil we were dependent on are running out, so new technologies come on line (ie fracking, deep water drilling, more economical cars, etc). Look at water, that one is going to be a challenge, but do you really think the economy will not react to that? No, it will present a potential for profit and lots of people will come up with lots of different solutions.
Grain, well its hard to see how thats a problem, seeing that we can afford to turn 40% of our current supplies into fuel. That provides for quite a bit of growth. Add to that drought resistent varities that are being developed and lots more land can be put under cultivation worldwide if need be (and if the price is right, it will).

Please tell me, what resource will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?

BTW, study the state of technology now verse 100 years ago for 30 seconds. Guess what, we have gotten pretty good at “some serious technological advances”.

 

[Nate13]

Lack of resources. Famine, lack of clean water, lack of fuel, etc. I guess overpopulation would sort itself out though because a lot of people would die and the population would go down again. But you have to be extremely naive to believe that the earth’s resources could support an unlimited number of people as some people in this thread seem to think.

The problem with this question is that every generation thinks its just the smartest group of people that ever walked the Earth and that they can foresee the future. People don’t seem to understand that people 40 years ago thought the same thing, and the people another 40 years before that thought they had it all figured out. What will happen is that in the next 20 years some new technology will come about that will allow us to provide for three times the population we have now and then all the pessimistic people will be back 20 years after that to tell us that without a shadow of a doubt they know for sure this time we won’t be able to support more than that amount of population. People in this generation need to get over themselves. We are smarter than the last generation, but in terms of overall intelligence there is still so much we don’t know, that its just an exercise of stupidity to try and say certain things are not possible. Our generation definitely wins one thing hands down, and that is the award for most conceited.

 

[lynnvinc]

Contrary to what is posted here, the world is becoming overpopulated, with eleven billion people forecast by the end of this century. We are in a crisis! We can only feed our present population because of fossil-fuel fertilizers. We are overfishing the seas. And when the fossil fuels run out, so will the food…

I think this is a true concern – peak oil → peak food, perhaps a more dire and immediate threat than global warming.

Thru the internet I met a UK farmer who is really into that. See peakfood.co.uk/

Another person was writing a book with the theme, supposing some Islamic terrorists take over some oil-rich nation or take hostage some oil magnates and make them halt oil to the West. Within months our grocery stores would be bare…

A good film to see is A Crude Awakening – they, incl oil ministers and spokespersons, don’t even mention GW, except to say that’s how our oil was forme 90 & 150 mya from extreme GW die off of biota. They only focus on oil depletion and paint a pretty harrowing scenario. See youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11B9A85C65A7006E . Excerpt: “Oil is our God. I don’t care if someone says they worship Jesus, Buddha, Allah, whomever. They actually worship petroleum.”

Then if you combine all other problems, GW being only one (see stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html), we’re in pretty deep doo-doo…and we really don’t need that extra methane either.

We are going to be tested by the end of the century as to whether we can live up to Christian standards and do good to others, without taking on a kill or be killed mentality.

But

 

[lynnvinc]

The problem with this question is that every generation thinks its just the smartest group of people that ever walked the Earth and that they can foresee the future. People don’t seem to understand that people 40 years ago thought the same thing, and the people another 40 years before that thought they had it all figured out. What will happen is that in the next 20 years some new technology will come about that will allow us to provide for three times the population we have now and then all the pessimistic people will be back 20 years after that to tell us that without a shadow of a doubt they know for sure this time we won’t be able to support more than that amount of population. People in this generation need to get over themselves. We are smarter than the last generation, but in terms of overall intelligence there is still so much we don’t know, that its just an exercise of stupidity to try and say certain things are not possible. Our generation definitely wins one thing hands down, and that is the award for most conceited.

The problem with that argument is that we already have off-the-shelf tech and knowledge to solve these problems, but people refuse to take responsibility and implement them. We may be smart, and I’m sure smarter tech is on its way as you suggest, but we have a very fallen nature. We are the sons and daughters of Cain. That about sums it up.

Unless…unless…God really helps us overcome our blockages and we really pray for His help.

Simply saying oh the world can feed 10 billion, 20 billion, without lifting a finger to reduce one’s own GHGs and other harms that threaten food productivity is a thoroughly lifeless claim.

 

[tafan]

Lack of resources. Famine, lack of clean water, lack of fuel, etc. I guess overpopulation would sort itself out though because a lot of people would die and the population would go down again. But you have to be extremely naive to believe that the earth’s resources could support an unlimited number of people as some people in this thread seem to think.

Not unlimited; but we have absolutely zero evidence we are approaching a limit. In every continent, except for Africa, the standard of living has improved among the worlds poor in the last 50 years. The greatest improvements, eg quality and quantity of food, have been made in the last 20 years.
The average third world citizen consumes twice as much meat as compared to 30 years ago.
The quality of housing continues to improve in most third world countries. The sanitation has improved in these same countries.

Quality of the environment has improved significantly on all industrialized countries over the last 30 years. Other third world countries are starting to make improvements.

Where poverty is getting worse , eg some African nations, Venezuela, there are glaring political problems far overshadowing any population concern.

All of this progress while the worlds population has been growing at historically high rates.

 

[Nate13]

The problem with that argument is that we already have off-the-shelf tech and knowledge to solve these problems, but people refuse to take responsibility and implement them. We may be smart, and I’m sure smarter tech is on its way as you suggest, but we have a very fallen nature. We are the sons and daughters of Cain. That about sums it up.

Unless…unless…God really helps us overcome our blockages and we really pray for His help.

Simply saying oh the world can feed 10 billion, 20 billion, without lifting a finger to reduce one’s own GHGs and other harms that threaten food productivity is a thoroughly lifeless claim.

If you think about it though all the off the shelf technology we have was paid for in oil, coal, and now natural gas. All of these supposed evils are the engine that drove us to the point where we were capable of producing these new technologies. And in my opinion the new technologies are not ready to replace our old faithful pals oil, coal, and natural gas. Thus why I believe we should keep running the old engine until we have the new one at ready to actually replace it, and hopefully do an even better job. I do not believe 20-40 more years is going to change the environmental landscape all that much and the transition will be much cleaner at that point and result in less suffering.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

They’d deny it was happening.

 

[interestedman]

They’d deny it was happening.

lol, so true. Simple but amazingly accurate.

 

[interestedman]

Not unlimited; but we have absolutely zero evidence we are approaching a limit. In every continent, except for Africa, the standard of living has improved among the worlds poor in the last 50 years. The greatest improvements, eg quality and quantity of food, have been made in the last 20 years.
The average third world citizen consumes twice as much meat as compared to 30 years ago.
The quality of housing continues to improve in most third world countries. The sanitation has improved in these same countries.

Quality of the environment has improved significantly on all industrialized countries over the last 30 years. Other third world countries are starting to make improvements.

Where poverty is getting worse , eg some African nations, Venezuela, there are glaring political problems far overshadowing any population concern.

All of this progress while the worlds population has been growing at historically high rates.

lol, this proves absolutely nothing other than the world doesn’t seem to be over populated right now.

Why are some of you so blinded by your beliefs and refuse to think rationally. This isn’t even really a religious issue at all.

FACT: there is a finite amount of resources the world can produce.

FACT: if the population gets high enough (I won’t even estimate a number because that is irrelevant) then there won’t be enough resources to go around.

How can you deny these two facts? Saying that overpopulation is impossible is soooo ridiculous. Overpopulation happens in animal populations somewhat regularly. Or is that a myth too?

 

[tafan]

lol, so true. Simple but amazingly accurate.

Provide evidence. Or dispute mine.
If we were about to reach a tipping point with food or energy, as that point approached, you would see more and more of the resources going to rich nations and you would see increase problems( eg famine) in the poor nations. But the opposite is happening!! The emerging nations are increasing their share of consumption of almost all major resources.

Where is the evidence we are anywhere close to a global overpopulation?

People who have advocated against over population have invariably supported some of the most inhumane practices imaginable. Before I threw in my lot with them, I would make damn sure the evidence supported it. Just reviewed the thread. Not one iota of evidence beyond global warming has been produced. Yet the problem is supposed to represent itself as a lack of resources. Where is the evidence???

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Provide evidence. Or dispute mine.
If we were about to reach a tipping point with food or energy, as that point approached, you would see more and more of the resources going to rich nations and you would see increase problems( eg famine) in the poor nations. But the opposite is happening!! The emerging nations are increasing their share of consumption of almost all major resources.

Where is the evidence we are anywhere close to a global overpopulation?

I think people who believe in overpopulation generally claim that the world is becoming too over-crowded, so problems will start to emerge, rather than claiming that we’ve already reached the stage of it happening. And they’d probably use your claim about nations using up more resources than ever before as evidence of overpopulation, not evidence against it.

People who have advocated against over population have invariably supported some of the most inhumane practices imaginable. Before I threw in my lot with them, I would make damn sure the evidence supported it. Just reviewed the thread. Not one iota of evidence beyond global warming has been produced. Yet the problem is supposed to represent itself as a lack of resources. Where is the evidence???

Well, we know that fossil fuels are running out, and there are declining oil reserves. If the population grows, this problem will only get larger as our need for fossil fuels increases. I’m not sure I agree with the over-population crowd when it comes to food, though. After all, that’s renewable, so I can’t really see that ever becoming a problem, and the more people we have, the more food will be produced.

I believe overpopulation can or does exist, obviously, but I don’t think it’s on such a scale that we need to act on it. It stands to reason that the more people we have, the more resources they will use up, but I don’t believe that would ever justify murder or abortion. And it is rather a logical fallacy to claim that people who believe in overpopulation have done bad things. You’re basically claiming that it’s immoral to believe in overpopulation because some people who believe in overpopulation also believe in doing immoral things. It doesn’t really make much sense.