If you think the green movement is harmless and consistent with your faith

[Jocko_VT]

Enormous leap? Have you looked at China?

We covered that. The error, I’m arguing, is the notion that wanting to limit population growth inevitably leads to a willingness to force women to have abortions. I don’t believe that’s true.

Wouldn’t the pleasantness of life depend on planning? New York City has a population of 8,175,133 packed into just 305 square miles. The state of Oregon, where I live, has a population of 3,825,657 spread out over 98,381 square miles. You can talk to many a New Yorker who find it quite pleasant to live in that densly populated city and wouldn’t consider living anywhere else.

Of course, NYC can not feed itself. If we told NYC that they had to supply their own food and water, I doubt they’d find the population density quite so pleasant.

We could easily feed everyone on the planet if we had the will, if you could get people to stop fighting , if you could get people in countries like the United States to stop wasting so much food (heck to not eat so much food and reduce obesity and improve their health), etc.

AGREED!!! At the same time, we need to be wary of *how *we grow food. We must use sustainable methods. Furthermore, economic policies are important here. Why can’t small Jamaican farmers make a living farming bananas anymore? Because Jamaica was forced to open their markets to the global market. Why do American farmers grow so much corn that’s inedible without processing? What’s happened to Mexican agriculture since NAFTA This is about much more than food. And it’s about much more than total population growth (as others have pointed out.)

But, let’s not pretend that perpetual, uncontrolled population growth is sustainable. There is a limit. The real question is, what is that limit? Furthermore, the fact that people live unsustainably is at the core of the argument criticized in the OP. We need to stop filling the air and water with pollutants.

Being a good steward to the earth is not mutually exclusive of believing the earth is not over populated.

True. My point has only been that, believing the earth is overpopulated is not the same as being willing to force women to have abortions.

The earth can easily sustain a larger population if we live in an appropriate (non wasteful manner).

YES!! The key=nonwasteful. We need to live sustainably.

 

[Hastrman]

We could easily feed everyone on the planet if we had the will, if you could get people to stop fighting , if you could get people in countries like the United States to stop wasting so much food (heck to not eat so much food and reduce obesity and improve their health), etc.

Being a good steward to the earth is not mutually exclusive of believing the earth is not over populated. The earth can easily sustain a larger population if we live in an appropriate (non wasteful manner).

Actually, according to the book “The War on Population”, the farmland of India alone, if the state-of-the-art of 1984’s agricultural tech is used everywhere, is capable of supporting something like 40 billion people…at a US level of calorie intake. It’s something like 70 billion at a Japanese level.

And I wouldn’t say it’s specifically “stop fighting” (that’s just not gonna happen) so much as “get rid of warlords in places like Africa whose creepy gang-armies make farming impossible by robbing and raping farmers”. And get rid of Communism—North Korea has worse nutrition now than it did in the 19th century, and they didn’t have trucks or pesticides.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But what happens when the other avenues don’t work–don’t acheive the desired result? Governments don’t usually give up and you can get people to do and tolerate a lot if you feed it to them little by little or do it in the name of national security. Look at the freedoms we have surrended since 911 in order to feel safe. People always say the ends do not justify the means but it seems that people and governments often act as if they do indeed believe that the ends do indeed justify the means.

I agree. This isn’t quite what’s happened in China, though, is it? And, this calls everything into question, doesn’t it? I mean, perhaps everything we typically desire is the product of the government (or, more likely, the mass consumer market), and it’s been fed to us little by little. I agree with you.

A better propaganda campaign would be "Do you love your fancy sports car? Do you love your fancy meals out? Then don’t have children! Oh wait I guess we’ve already had that campaign and it appears to be working–of course one of the ways it works is through women having abortions as that is one way not to have children.

Very nice! Again, I agree. Of course, if birth control were more readily available, along with education on these matters to make that availability more meaningful, and if non-marital sex weren’t such a big deal, US abortion rates would decline rapidly over a couple of decades. But, short of converting everyone to be *devout *Catholics, you’re going to have these problems. You have to pick something.

But yes–the sports car, eating out, gigantic home, extra car, vacation house, etc., have become respectable aspirations. Modernity is the problem here–and I think I’m on your side in this respect. The catch–if we didn’t have modernity, we’d have high birth rates and high mortality rates, because increased life expectancy is part of the “problem.” We want all the wrong things!!! That’s the problem that lies at the bottom of all this, perhaps. Ironically, I think the people in the OP calling for population limits agree!! They just want to protect the Earth from modernity!!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Actually, according to the book “The War on Population”, the farmland of India alone, if the state-of-the-art of 1984’s agricultural tech is used everywhere, is capable of supporting something like 40 billion people…at a US level of calorie intake. It’s something like 70 billion at a Japanese level.

I know you’re ignoring me, but I’m still responding .

I assume this “state-of-the-art” technology requires major (name removed by moderator)uts of fossil fuels and man-made fertilizers? That would be unsustainable.

American farmers grow tremendous amounts of calories in the midwest. Unfortunately, they’re destroying the land and the aquifer, and they’re polluting all the rivers and creating a dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, they’re depleting genetic diversity globally, which sets us all up for a major famine!!

And I wouldn’t say it’s specifically “stop fighting” (that’s just not gonna happen) so much as “get rid of warlords in places like Africa whose creepy gang-armies make farming impossible by robbing and raping farmers”. And get rid of Communism—North Korea has worse nutrition now than it did in the 19th century, and they didn’t have trucks or pesticides.

Of course, it’s capitalism that’s destroying sustainable agriculture in the US, Mexico, and Jamaica. Local, Local, Local is the Answer, Answer, Answer!! And the Church agrees!! But, it’s not just politics, but economics that needs to be local–something too many people in these forums doesn’t understand!

 

[fbl9]

I know you’re ignoring me, but I’m still responding .

I assume this “state-of-the-art” technology requires major (name removed by moderator)uts of fossil fuels and man-made fertilizers? That would be unsustainable.

American farmers grow tremendous amounts of calories in the midwest. Unfortunately, they’re destroying the land and the aquifer, and they’re polluting all the rivers and creating a dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, they’re depleting genetic diversity globally, which sets us all up for a major famine!!

Of course, it’s capitalism that’s destroying sustainable agriculture in the US, Mexico, and Jamaica. Local, Local, Local is the Answer, Answer, Answer!! And the Church agrees!! But, it’s not just politics, but economics that needs to be local–something too many people in these forums doesn’t understand!

A note on sustainable farming. over a long period of time there needs to be an outside source of phosphate.in an organic farming system there is no other way to restore this nutrient to the soil.

 

[Jocko_VT]

A note on sustainable farming. over a long period of time there needs to be an outside source of phosphate.in an organic farming system there is no other way to restore this nutrient to the soil.

Is it not available in the bones and manure of grazing animals? So much for the idea that we can feed 40 billion People forever!!

 

[fbl9]

Is it not available in the bones and manure of grazing animals? So much for the idea that we can feed 40 billion People forever!!

Some,can be, but not all can ever be recovered.
Such is the complexity of time everything comes to a finite number.

 

[benedictus2]

Why would I defend a statement I never made?

The OP did not say “if you don’t recognize that some folks within the green movement hold views opposed to the Catholic faith,” or even "some aspects of the mainstream green movement. . . . " If the OP had said that, I would have had no quarrel.

This is the OP:
"
… you need to read this:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ…=slide&mag=tdg

I quote:
**Sin: Ditching Birth Control **

Climate change is the last thing you want to think about in the heat of the moment. But if you forget (or choose not to use) birth control, you’re risking more than an itchy, embarrassing STD. Babies are adorable, but all those gurgling genetic replicas can be major carbon sins. Each one of those “extra” children adds 9,441 metric tons of carbon to the planet.

If babies are considered “major carbon sins”, how long will it be until the elderly, or those who oppose climate change, will be, too? "

You said: “Well, Pope Benedict seems to disagree with the OP:”

Then you gave an extract and link to the Pope’s speech in Germany.

Please explain how what the Pope said disagrees with the OP.

If the Pope disagreed with the OP, then he must have been in agreement with the quote cited by the OP which the OP found disagreeable.

 

[benedictus2]

o, but you are misrepresenting me by assuming that I’m defending the particular website cited by the OP, when what I’m going after is the OP’s generalization about “the green movement.”

No Contarini. You were either not clear of what you thought so it translated to what you wrote.

You said the Pope disagreed with the OP. I cited the OP verbatim. There was nothing in the Pope’s speech that was in the least bit close to disagreeing with the OP.

Re-read the OP.

 

[Contarini]

This is the OP:
"
… you need to read this:

No, the OP read “If you think the green movement is harmless and consistent with your faith, you need to read this.”

Why are you omitting the title, which was part of the post?

That’s what I’m responding to. Pope Benedict does not generalize about the green movement in the way the OP did.

If the Pope disagreed with the OP, then he must have been in agreement with the quote cited by the OP which the OP found disagreeable.

No, I’m arguing that he would disagree with the OP’s decision to generalize about the green movement based on one statement on one website.

You seem to be hiding behind the ludicrous technicality that the title of the OP’s post is not itself part of the post. That’s not even worthy of a response. I have given you a response anyway as a courtesy. I will not do so again.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[benedictus2]

No, the OP read “If you think the green movement is harmless and consistent with your faith, you need to read this.”

The OP is NOT the thread title.

The green movement is not the same as conservation or properly caring for the environment.

As someone else has posted, the green movement is controlled mostly by leftists and left leaning “environmentalist”.

It is not wonder that they are always crying for population control.

Why are you omitting the title, which was part of the post?

No it is not part of the OP, unless you are willing to say that the title is always part of everyone’s post in which case it would seem that everyone who posts is espousing the OP.
That’s what I’m responding to. Pope Benedict does not generalize about the green movement in the way the OP did.
Neither did the Pope refer to the green movement. He merely referred to the need for care for the environment. The green movement is more than just care for the environment.

 

[4elise]

Whenever the “green movement” is equated with those trying to advocate for population control it becomes easy to disavow every good thing that the “green movement” means.

As Catholics I believe we should be LEADING the real “green movement” because we believe that we - made in the image of God are the stewards of creation and therefore we are responsible to ensure that we care for it, and do not destroy this wonderful gift.

We can speak for LIFE, for protecting all of God’s gifts, and this includes the value we place on EVERY human life from the moment of conception till natural death AND advocating for ways to keep this creation for future generations - something we are tasked with.

We won’t get it right every time, but we need to keep trying, and we should take the bully pulpit and take ownership of the ‘green movement’ and help others understand the WHY we should care about creation!

God Bless,

 

[Cinette]

*Hello Everybody!

Someone sent me the link to this thread and I have not read more than a couple of postings and I am very interested in this subject. Will try to catch up.

In the meantime I would like to suggest that anyone interested google “Demographic Winter” (unless this has already been done) and you will see other aspects of the subject. Very interesting.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[sedonaman]

…People are not carbon sins, they are God’s highest creation.

Those who promote the Green agenda are liberal for the most part. Liberals maintain that morality is relative, that no one’s morality is superior to another’s. If liberals are right, why should we accept their morality? And if they are right, there can be no sin by definition.

 

[4elise]

Those who promote the Green agenda are liberal for the most part. Liberals maintain that morality is relative, that no one’s morality is superior to another’s. If liberals are right, why should we accept their morality? And if they are right, there can be no sin by definition.

I think it is possible that this kind of generalization leads to throwing the baby out with the bathwater -

There is so much good in our call to care for creation, for this generation and for future generations and this is the teaching of our Church.

If one say - 'Well everyone who espouses the green movement is liberal, and all liberals view morality as relative - therefore (through some form of transitive properties) the green movement is amoral." - one could just as easily say “Those who do not espouse the green movement are conservatives, and conservatives care more about their bottom line then caring for the environment, therefore not supporting the green movement is based on an amoral view of profit over God’s gifts.” -

So not all liberals who support the green movement are ones who see morality as relative.

Not all conservatives who do not support the green movement care more for profit than creation.

It is possible to be pro life and pro creation - in fact the two go pretty close in hand in my opinion - conservation.catholic.org/catechism.htm -

This is why we Catholics should embrace the ‘green movement’ and clarify exactly what that means, and why it is important.

Blessings,

 

[fbl9]

snip…
It is possible to be pro life and pro creation - in fact the two go pretty close in hand in my opinion - conservation.catholic.org/catechism.htm -

This is why we Catholics should embrace the ‘green movement’ and clarify exactly what that means, and why it is important.

Blessings,

How would you describe a Catholic ‘green movement’?

 

[4elise]

How would you describe a Catholic ‘green movement’?

I would describe the Catholic green movement as Catholics who consider creation care in their choices and decisions… working to protect God’s gifts of creation for people today and for people tomorrow - this is the reason the “Catholic” way this has been expressed by our Popes, by the teaching of our Church…

Pope John Paul II said in praise of ecological awareness in his Common Declaration of Environmental Ethics along with the Orthodox Patriarch:

“God has not abandoned the world. It is His will that His design and our hope for it will be realized through our co-operation in restoring its original harmony. In our own time we are witnessing a growth of an ecological awareness which needs to be encouraged, so that it will lead to practical programmes and initiatives. An awareness of the relationship between God and humankind brings a fuller sense of the importance of the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, which is God’s creation and which God entrusted to us to guard with wisdom and love (cf. Gen 1:28).”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds Catholics that we are to act in a responsible manner toward God’s creation:

2415 “The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”

So, this will IMHO take many different ways to express this —
Advocating and being good at recycling,
Advocating and being good at *‘resource use’ *that keeps this imperative at the forefront,
Advocating for policies that also meet this criteria -

We should strive to ensure that our choices keep God’s gifts at the front of our choices - there can obviously be honest disagreement about what and how this can be done, but I think labeling people and a ‘movement’ we risk the opportunity to help people know WHY it matters - I believe we Catholics should be the leaders in this discussion and provide the clarity necessary - it is an opportunity to educate and evangelize people.

Blessings,

 

[Granola_Catholi]

There is so much more to the Green movement than sex and birth control. Being Green is about being good stewards to the Earth that God gave us. We are an NFP practicing couple, after learning what hormonal birth control does to a woman;s body and to the environment I stopped using them. We used birth control pills, briefly in the beginning of our marriage, because we thought that is what everyone did. I have always been what some would call Green and for me it is more of a healthy life style. There are many other Green/Crunchy Catholics out there too. I suppose we could take on the birth control issue more and educate the public about birth control.

 

[doArcanjo]

My 2 cents.

Environmentalism as is preached in nowadays IS NOCIVE to human society.

Defend the Gifts, given by God, and use them well is a struggle with ourselves as with the environment that surround us, and the things we use from other environments - the problem is “far way from the eyes, far away from the heart” - and environmentalists forget that for they have their Iphone’s, and computers, life style in general how much energy and resources had been used or consumed, or even the money they have AVAILABLE TO SPENT in Green Techs - How, Where did that money come from?

That is from (my) upper view of the problem, on regulation of 3rd world countries, where they still don’t have electricity, and they “advertise green” when there isn’t an Infrastructure, nor money to reach the major part of the population, with a green techs, that don’t even produce the same amount(1/10 IN GENERAL), the processes aren’t optimized, and are much more expensive.

They don’t care about people, so there’s “overpopulation”, we need less persons so green can be viable and make (the few) everybody happy.

Some links on overpopulation, food scarce,…
Easy videos, with the “juice” to start learning, and how to self-defend from false or fallacious arguments:

[youtube.com/user/Col(name removed by moderator)ri1](http://www.youtube.com/user/Col(name removed by moderator)ri1)

Main site:
pop.org/

God bless you all,
João

 

[sedonaman]

I think it is possible that this kind of generalization leads to throwing the baby out with the bathwater -

There is so much good in our call to care for creation, for this generation and for future generations and this is the teaching of our Church.

If one say - 'Well everyone who espouses the green movement is liberal, and all liberals view morality as relative - therefore (through some form of transitive properties) the green movement is amoral." - one could just as easily say “Those who do not espouse the green movement are conservatives, and conservatives care more about their bottom line then caring for the environment, therefore not supporting the green movement is based on an amoral view of profit over God’s gifts.” -

So not all liberals who support the green movement are ones who see morality as relative.

Not all conservatives who do not support the green movement care more for profit than creation.

It is possible to be pro life and pro creation - in fact the two go pretty close in hand in my opinion - conservation.catholic.org/catechism.htm -

This is why we Catholics should embrace the ‘green movement’ and clarify exactly what that means, and why it is important.

Blessings,

There’s an exception to every rule, even, it would seem, to the rule that there’s an exception to every rule. That’s why I said “for the most part.”