NFP and Population Levels

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thinking10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thinking10 said:
Infant mortality rates were higher, and the average lifespan of a person was much shorter. Even in 1910, the average lifespan of a man was 48, and for a woman, it was 51.
Click to expand...
What does a woman’s mortality rate matter after the fertile years? Your entire premise is flawed and false. If you could make a logical case I would bite but you are just throwing out assumptions to try to prove the Church or God’s commands false.

It is silly.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What does a woman’s mortality rate matter after the fertile years? Your entire premise is flawed and false. If you could make a logical case I would bite but you are just throwing out assumptions to try to prove the Church or God’s commands false.

It is silly.
Click to expand...
What percentage of the population lives past child bearing age now compared to 150 years ago? I am thinking of a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth’s population would become unsustainable. The more people there are, the less space there is and the less resources there are per person.
 
Thinking10 said:
What percentage of the population is past child bearing age now compared to 150 years ago? I am thinking of a hypothetical scenario in which the Earth’s population would become unsustainable. The more people there are, the less space there is and the less resources there are per person.
Click to expand...
Not falling for it. Sorry. Good news is that someone on here will though. 😉 Good luck.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What does a woman’s mortality rate matter after the fertile years? Your entire premise is flawed and false. If you could make a logical case I would bite but you are just throwing out assumptions to try to prove the Church or God’s commands false.

It is silly.
Click to expand...
Right. And if we’re going to bring up statistics, how about the fact that people are – on average – marrying later in life? It’s hard to get to 12 kids when you don’t get married until you’re 30.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Not falling for it. Sorry. Good news is that someone on here will though. 😉 Good luck.
Click to expand...
I don’t have an agenda, but where I see weaknesses in arguments or positions, be it in politics or any other matter, I like to test those weaknesses to see how well they hold up. If my scenario proves unrealistic, then that the result is that my objection or test proves unfounded.

I am looking for truth and better insight through rigorous testing and questioning.
 
Can you concisely state your premise or hypothesis, so we know what aspect you wish to discuss (or test, as you say)? Your initial posts are rather vague.
 
Thinking10 said:
I don’t have an agenda, but where I see weaknesses in arguments or positions, be it in politics or any other matter, I like to test those weaknesses to see how well they hold up. If my scenario proves unrealistic, then that the result is that my objection or test proves unfounded.

I am looking for truth and better insight through rigorous testing and questioning.
Click to expand...
But your logic is sloppy. What good is it to test weaknesses of arguments when you are assuming tons of illogical things all the while throwing out claims of data that do not exist? I’m sorry. I cannot take your question as not having an agenda. It is obvious you do.
 
Thinking10 said:
I don’t have an agenda, but where I see weaknesses in arguments or positions, be it in politics or any other matter, I like to test those weaknesses to see how well they hold up. If my scenario proves unrealistic, then that the result is that my objection or test proves unfounded.

I am looking for truth and better insight through rigorous testing and questioning.
Click to expand...
Yes, if every single human being that is currently alive (from newborn to 100+ years old) paired off exactly (since luck would have it that there was exactly a 50:50 ratio of men to women) and 100% of the couples were able to have an average of 9 children; and further that the same would hold true for two successive generations, then things would play out as you suggested.

There is no way that will ever happen. And even if it did, I’m not sure what that would prove. 🤷
 
Joe_5859 said:
Right. And if we’re going to bring up statistics, how about the fact that people are – on average – marrying later in life? It’s hard to get to 12 kids when you don’t get married until you’re 30.
Click to expand...
The scenario doesn’t assume that people are following current trends in marriage, but are following a conservative Catholic lifestyle, where such a reproduction rate is common (even at 2.5 children x 5 billion people is 12.5 billion).

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with large families in the current state of the world, given the very low birth rates in some countries.

Let’s not focus on me so much as the arguments I am making. If my arguments are false refute them. That is the purpose of posing these questions, to see errors in the arguments I present, and refining my arguments based finding on errors in them.
 
I think it’s more concerning to look at how many young women, under the ‘safety net’ of the pill and abortion have aborted millions of babies when they were having sex too young and not ready for children. (Sometimes a pill is missed at a critical time or the woman takes a medication that neutralizes the effectiveness of the pill, or for what ever reason) That’s a realistic stat to look at and frightful and not at all hypothetical.

Then there are the young ladies who cannot bare to go through an abortion and become abandoned by their fellas. Many live below the poverty line. This is not good for women or babies, not good for taxpayers who may already be living paycheck to paycheck, and not good for a nation.

The way God planned marriage and family life, where a couple only has sex after coming before family and friends, committing their lives to each other and their future children, is proven good for women, for babies and for men. Not to mention how, if a magic wand existed to make this happen, all these sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, would disappear, and the huge amount of money for medical treatment and research would no longer be needed.

That’s worth thinking about, but it deserves it’s own thread, not to derail yours.
 
Thinking10 said:
The scenario doesn’t assume that people are following current trends in marriage, but are following a conservative Catholic lifestyle, where such a reproduction rate is common (even at 2.5 children x 5 billion people is 12.5 billion).

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with large families in the current state of the world, given the very low birth rates in some countries.

Let’s not focus on me so much as the arguments I am making. If my arguments are false refute them. That is the purpose of posing these questions, to see errors in the arguments I present, and refining my arguments based finding on errors in them.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “conservative Catholic lifestyle”?

And how would that impact the ability for young people to find a spouse faster than they do now, or the ability to be prepared for marriage faster than what is typical now?

And what about the explosion of religious vocations Joe mentioned upthread? Such people never marry and procreate, and faithful Catholic families turn out more religious vocations. Ergo, it is a valid consideration for your scenario.

Finally, what has any of this to do with the use of NFP? I still don’t see why you mentioned that in your title. Can you elaborate further on these points?
 
Ok I’ll refute.
Thinking10 said:
Right now we have about 7 billion people on Earth, right? Suppose the entire world was Catholic, and followed NFP teachings and had a family of between 6 and 12 children. The median family size would be 9 children, or 4.5 per person currently living. In one generation, our planet’s population would go from 7 billion people to (7 x 4.5) 31.5 billion. Could we really support 31.5 billion people?

If this hypothetical rate of reproduction continued for two more generations, we would have 637 billion.
Click to expand...
Right now we have about 7 billion people on Earth, right?
Click to expand...
Accepted.
Suppose the entire world was Catholic, and followed NFP teachings and had a family of between 6 and 12 children.
Click to expand...
Why Catholic and why NFP. Muslims do not practice ABC. Define NFP.

6-12 is a ton of difference. Which one is it? what is the family size? How do you arrive at this number?
That is not how population works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
Could we really support 31.5 billion people?
Click to expand...
Yes. But the problem is the politics of resources. There is enough, but just like now or 1000 years ago getting resources to all people equally is the problem.

Your scenario has too many variables. Is the entire population living in first world situations? What about diseases? What about increased productivity with increased population? What about war? What about third world.

In the third world you do not have ABC but you do not have population explosions. Why?
 
It is a false notion that there are a lot of us in this world. You should investigate who are th e proponents of such theories and what is behind them. The truth is that consumption is outstanding. Specially in the US that consume almost have of the worlds resources. The world can easily mange 35 billion people, even with all the devils plans of consumerism. Anyway it is all in God’s plan, and maybe that is the way the end of days will begin, but why fret about it, God is in control, not you, population or the devil.
 
@OP: As I understand it, the Catholic church teaches that responsible parenthood involves prayerfully discerning 1) what God is calling a couple to do, 2) what each spouse’s responsibilities are to the other spouse; 3) the couple’s responsibility to their existing family, and 4) their responsibility to society. Let’s assume, arguendo, that in a particular circumstance a couple could discern that their responsibility to society is to limit the size of the family. Why would one not assume that if population levels actually did approach the point that there was literally and figuratively no space, and scarcity problems were not problems of corrupt/inept governments and inefficient systems of delivery, then couples would prayerfully discern that they are being called to have smaller families, and world population growth woudl slow?

Birth regulation is OK, if done through moral means, contraception is not. Birth control can refer to either, so it helps to use a bit of precision in these types of conversations.

I think it is much more likely that, if all families were prayerfully evaluating to what they are called, one would find that the second and third areas - - responsibility to spouse and to existing family - - would be the grounds that would limit a particular family’s size.
 
choose_to_love said:
@OP: As I understand it, the Catholic church teaches that responsible parenthood involves prayerfully discerning 1) what God is calling a couple to do, 2) what each spouse’s responsibilities are to the other spouse; 3) the couple’s responsibility to their existing family, and 4) their responsibility to society. Let’s assume, arguendo, that in a particular circumstance a couple could discern that their responsibility to society is to limit the size of the family. Why would one not assume that if population levels actually did approach the point that there was literally and figuratively no space, and scarcity problems were not problems of corrupt/inept governments and inefficient systems of delivery, then couples would prayerfully discern that they are being called to have smaller families, and world population growth woudl slow?

Birth regulation is OK, if done through moral means, contraception is not. Birth control can refer to either, so it helps to use a bit of precision in these types of conversations.

I think it is much more likely that, if all families were prayerfully evaluating to what they are called, one would find that the second and third areas - - responsibility to spouse and to existing family - - would be the grounds that would limit a particular family’s size.
Click to expand...
I get your point. But the “prayerful evaluations” are more in depth and require more direction than you state. It is more than just “deciding” to procreate. It is about fulfilling a command and a sacrament.
 
PennyinCanada said:
I think it’s more concerning to look at how many young women, under the ‘safety net’ of the pill and abortion have aborted millions of babies when they were having sex too young and not ready for children. (Sometimes a pill is missed at a critical time or the woman takes a medication that neutralizes the effectiveness of the pill, or for what ever reason) That’s a realistic stat to look at and frightful and not at all hypothetical.

Then there are the young ladies who cannot bare to go through an abortion and become abandoned by their fellas. Many live below the poverty line. This is not good for women or babies, not good for taxpayers who may already be living paycheck to paycheck, and not good for a nation.

The way God planned marriage and family life, where a couple only has sex after coming before family and friends, committing their lives to each other and their future children, is proven good for women, for babies and for men. Not to mention how, if a magic wand existed to make this happen, all these sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, would disappear, and the huge amount of money for medical treatment and research would no longer be needed.

That’s worth thinking about, but it deserves it’s own thread, not to derail yours.
Click to expand...
I agree, we would be much better off if everyone limited sexual activity to their spouse. However, I am still unsure about strictly following the rules for what sexual activity is allowed within marriage, so I would like to see if my objections hold up or not.

One reason I am not convinced are some bible quotes which don’t seem to limit sex to only procreative act.

This quote from Saint Paul is the most specific one, although there are a couple others.
He talks about marriage for the purpose of directing sexual desires without sinning, and as a means of defeating temptation to premarital sex. He also says that abstinence by a couple should be limited in length for purpose of controlling temptations to extramarital sex, not for producing children. If abstinence is causing hardship and sexual frustration to a couple, it seems that this is contrary to what Paul says, that a married couple should not be experiencing these things.

1 Corinthians 7

"Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and **come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

“8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Anyway, back on topic…**
 
I don’t think it’s right to assume that a conservative Catholic family will have 9+ kids.

Yes, generally, Catholic and Mormon families have lots of kids. However, the number of kids is more reliant on social trends than religious affiliation. Using NFP, which is just as effective as most ABCs, most conservative Catholic families have 2-5 kids, with most of them having 2-4 kids.

If every woman within her childbearing years in the world had that many kids, the population would continue to rise for a few generations due to demographic momentum, then…we don’t know.

Most peripheral countries today are in stage 2 of the DTM (demographic transition model), where mortality rates fall due to better technology but birth rates remain high from the first stage. Lowering their birth rates would take them into stage three (demographically), though the development of technology wouldn’t match. Which doesn’t make sense.

For a core country like Japan (hypothetically in stage 5 of the DTM) to increase it’s number of children to around three would take it backwards into the DTM, which doesn’t even make sense because it’s technological development wouldn’t match its population growth.

Anyway, I’ll stop there because I don’t want my brain to explode. You could explore the issue from many different standpoints; I chose the DTM. I know i didn’t exactly answer your question, but I didn’t want to go looking for percentages of the world in different zones of the core-periphery model, trends, or do a ton of math stuff that would make up a complete answer. Sorry:( I would, because now I’m curious, but I’ve got work to do.

Your question extends far beyond a simple calculation and a couple assumptions on the population of the world and mortality rates.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I get your point. But the “prayerful evaluations” are more in depth and require more direction than you state. It is more than just “deciding” to procreate. It is about fulfilling a command and a sacrament.
Click to expand...
The Church leaves the decision-making process to the couple, and says that only they have the ability to make the decision, and does not require any spiritual direction. I know that NFP is an issue for you, theologically speaking, but you still have to admit that the Church imposes no requirement for direction. Also, sometimes prayerful discernment is in-depth, and sometimes it is very simple and straightforward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top