On limiting population growth thru contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pag_Hingowa

Guest
I think limiting population growth would result in levels of wealth and lifestyles that end up resulting in more deaths and childlessness. Thus if people would limit their family-size on the assumption that doing so will keep population growth under control, it could end up backfiring as population actual spirals into a degenerative, pattern of destruction. The fact is that no one can ultimately predict human behavior. Personally, I can see having just one or two kids with the faith that they will prosper but someone else may feel like having more kids is a safety precaution against losing one or more to tragedy at some point.

Any comments or stats to back-up this contention?
 
I remember when contraception was first being pushed one of the fears was that it would change the “balance” within the population. I’m not sure of the statistical facts, but it seems that poorer people have more children than wealthier. This makes fewer “haves” and more “Have nots”. That could definitely have an effect on society. I’ll leave it to others to do research of facts and statistics. It’ll be interesting to see what they find.
 
Pag_Hingowa said:
I think limiting population growth would result in levels of wealth and lifestyles that end up resulting in more deaths and childlessness. Thus if people would limit their family-size on the assumption that doing so will keep population growth under control, it could end up backfiring as population actual spirals into a degenerative, pattern of destruction. The fact is that no one can ultimately predict human behavior. Personally, I can see having just one or two kids with the faith that they will prosper but someone else may feel like having more kids is a safety precaution against losing one or more to tragedy at some point.

Any comments or stats to back-up this contention?
Click to expand...
Demographic Winter
 
People who think the earth is running out of space are the equivalent of those who think the moon is made of cheese or that Elvis is alive! 😃
 
Pag_Hingowa said:
. Thus if people would limit their family-size on the assumption that doing so will keep population growth under control, it could end up backfiring as population actual spirals into a degenerative, pattern of destruction.
Click to expand...
We are already there.

It seems to me that the most common trait passed on in such small families is selfishness, such as the desire to have a 4000 square foot house, two bimmers in the garage, etc.
 
Rascalking said:
People who think the earth is running out of space are the equivalent of those who think the moon is made of cheese or that Elvis is alive! 😃
Click to expand...
Or they have science degrees and realize that how many people can be jammed into Texas has no bearing on sustainability.😃
 
Pag_Hingowa said:
I think limiting population growth would result in levels of wealth and lifestyles that end up resulting in more deaths and childlessness. Thus if people would limit their family-size on the assumption that doing so will keep population growth under control, it could end up backfiring as population actual spirals into a degenerative, pattern of destruction. The fact is that no one can ultimately predict human behavior. Personally, I can see having just one or two kids with the faith that they will prosper but someone else may feel like having more kids is a safety precaution against losing one or more to tragedy at some point.
Click to expand...
If limiting population growth is a virtue, who decides who has to breed?
 
Warrior1979 said:
Or they have science degrees and realize that how many people can be jammed into Texas has no bearing on sustainability.😃
Click to expand...
Yeah, if y’all haven’t watched that video that says everyone could fit into Texas with a house. Just think how much land all the other things in society would take up. All the roads, parking lots, stores, stadiums, swimming pools.
And when I say stores really dwell on that for a while, that’s all the thousands of malls, strip outlets, village areas. Then all the industry, factories, warehouses, train tracks, airports, businesses.

I tried looking for stats for it, but couldn’t find a good site. Anyways, I know that deforestation is a serious issue. Basically a whole lot of the world’s ecosystems have been destroyed by 70%-90% in a lot of areas. Statistically, I was looking for basically how many millions of acres of trees we’ve lost in the United States since the time of the Indians to present day. It’s definitely over 50%.

And, I didn’t mention all the farmland. That probably takes up the most space out of anything I mentioned.

I’m not a huge environmentalist or anything. But, I disagree with the society that technology has propelled us towards. We should try to move back to living in small towns where people walked places and restructure society without cars, roads, parking lots, parking decks, asphault. Basically, I think adopting SOME elements that the Amish have into our society would be good. Those are my :twocents:on this issue.

I’ll also mention how encouraging it is that liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (who are likely to be both) don’t have many children. And, Catholics have many more children, if they’re following the sexual morality of the Church. It’s encouraging that our enemy is a self-defeating one. Which the OP eluded to.
 
Hmm…
To more straightforwardly reply:
I don’t believe in contraception or population control, and neither should the Church or will the Church. I don’t believe the Church should allow this, because population growth isn’t the problem.
The problem is that people are using way too much land and way too many resources to live. We need to stop living lives of excess. Case in point: Our food is all labeled with health facts for a 2,000 daily calorie diet. Americans eat an average somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500 daily calorie diet. That’s minimum 33% more farmland to support our population. 🍿🍿🍿🍕🍰🍕:cake:If countries like China want our lifestyle then they’ll go from whatever they are now (I’m guessing between 1800 and 2200) to 3000+ for 1 billion people.

Excessive use of resources is the problem, not overpopulation.
 
Our current food production system uses a massive amount of nonrenewable resources, and our current population levels can only exist because of it.
 
Thanks for the responses. I think the resources and cultural flexibility is available to accommodate plenty of population growth but the challenge is how to ensure that people can live happily with limited resources. And the fact that people complain about population without doing enough to reform resource-utilization leads me to believe that the real political interest behind population-control is political-economic control over human capital so that wealthy people can guarantee their position of power vis-a-vis those they don’t want to extend their way of life to include.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
Yeah, if y’all haven’t watched that video that says everyone could fit into Texas with a house. Just think how much land all the other things in society would take up. All the roads, parking lots, stores, stadiums, swimming pools.
And when I say stores really dwell on that for a while, that’s all the thousands of malls, strip outlets, village areas. Then all the industry, factories, warehouses, train tracks, airports, businesses.

I tried looking for stats for it, but couldn’t find a good site. Anyways, I know that deforestation is a serious issue. Basically a whole lot of the world’s ecosystems have been destroyed by 70%-90% in a lot of areas. Statistically, I was looking for basically how many millions of acres of trees we’ve lost in the United States since the time of the Indians to present day. It’s definitely over 50%.

And, I didn’t mention all the farmland. That probably takes up the most space out of anything I mentioned.

I’m not a huge environmentalist or anything. But, I disagree with the society that technology has propelled us towards. We should try to move back to living in small towns where people walked places and restructure society without cars, roads, parking lots, parking decks, asphault. Basically, I think adopting SOME elements that the Amish have into our society would be good. Those are my :twocents:on this issue.

I’ll also mention how encouraging it is that liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (who are likely to be both) don’t have many children. And, Catholics have many more children, if they’re following the sexual morality of the Church. It’s encouraging that our enemy is a self-defeating one. Which the OP eluded to.
Click to expand...
Yes but the worls is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY bigger than texas. Duh! That’s the point!
 
Semper_Zelare said:
Hmm…
To more straightforwardly reply:
I don’t believe in contraception or population control, and neither should the Church or will the Church. I don’t believe the Church should allow this, because population growth isn’t the problem.
The problem is that people are using way too much land and way too many resources to live. We need to stop living lives of excess. Case in point: Our food is all labeled with health facts for a 2,000 daily calorie diet. Americans eat an average somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500 daily calorie diet. That’s minimum 33% more farmland to support our population. 🍿🍿🍿🍕🍰🍕:cake:If countries like China want our lifestyle then they’ll go from whatever they are now (I’m guessing between 1800 and 2200) to 3000+ for 1 billion people.

Excessive use of resources is the problem, not overpopulation.
Click to expand...
overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it
 
Warrior1979 said:
I didn’t even click the link…is this another one of those no-support, personal-opinion cartoons?😃

There is a lot of food out there, of course…and a lot of nonrenewable resources to support that level of food production.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by “no support personal oppinion cartoon.” Yes it is a cartoon is all I can say 'cause I don’t know what you mean.
 
Lucky102 said:
I don’t know what you mean by “no support personal oppinion cartoon.” Yes it is a cartoon is all I can say 'cause I don’t know what you mean.
Click to expand...
I’ve watched a few of these cartoons in the past. They’re long on personal opinions, and short on facts.
 
It’s good to face reality as the video shows: http://www.demographicwinter.com"
“Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.” Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

“Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.”

Contraception is a solution to nothing and degrades humanity.

Europe’s Demographic Winter threatening the U.S.A.
Having Children: Anatomy of a Cultural Strategy“
…for the first time, the birth rate in the United States has fallen below the replacement level. All of this is finally generating a buzz. If you’re a young Catholic looking for an effective long-term strategy to reclaim Western culture, having a large family should be on your short list.”
See: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=444
 
Contraception is a solution to nothing and degrades humanity.
Click to expand...
Europe’s Demographic Winter threatening the U.S.A.
Having Children: Anatomy of a Cultural Strategy“
…for the first time, the birth rate in the United States has fallen below the replacement level. All of this is finally generating a buzz. If you’re a young Catholic looking for an effective long-term strategy to reclaim Western culture, having a large family should be on your short list.”
See: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=444
Click to expand...
The above is the crux of the problem. Both sides take extreme positions, and nothing ever gets solved. The above quote is also xenophobic.
“Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.”
Click to expand...
The population free-fall is unlikely to occur for very obvious reasons. People will continue to have children, just not as many. The average family size can’t drop another two children if the average isn’t two children in the first place.

The reduction in modern society is naturally a problem because of the pyramid nature of the economy. The societies that have reached steady state (zero population growth) and don’t have pyramid funded economies don’t have these problems. Naturally, those examples get tossed out the window, because they don’t support preconceived notions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top