On limiting population growth thru contraception

[PJM]

=StAnastasia;8521237]World population hits 7 billion on Oct. 31, or thereabouts

World population hits 7 billion on Oct. 31, or thereabouts
latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-seven-billionth-baby-20111031,0,455314.story

to be “Catholic” in practice and NOT name only; TWO critical points must be mage.

Point One: God ALONE demands His Soverign rights to cotroal ALL life and eath issues:

Birth is Controlled by God

Genesis 4:1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,’ she said

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born,** not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “**

**Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. **

Point Two: God sets infront of us ONLY One real choice:

**Deut.30: 19 “**I [GOD] call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,”

Either we alone are in charge of our lives
or God is in charge of our lives. The responsibility cannot be shared.

God Bless you,
Pat [PJM]

 

[Warrior1979]

As a retired member of the oil industry after 34 years, I was enjoying the pickle into which the doomsayers and illiterates were embroiling themselves over their energy impasse, as well as population confusion. Typical of the immense confusion is Warrior1979’s “So the pro-life view is to view babies as little economic engines to bail us out of the problems we created? Really, God help us if that is their position.” (#316)

One of my good sources regarding energy matters is a former oil industry worker and geologist. He worked in the business until the price crash in the 1980s. He now deals with these business in a different function, which includes the viability of projects and their valuation. I get cross-eyed reading his analyses on these new finds. The long and short of it is that these finds aren’t what they are cut out to be. Projections are ridiculously optimistic, and the actual production rapidly declines when it was projected to decrease…and that it without consideration of the amount of energy and other resources that are necessary to extract these resources in the first place.

Thank God for the creativity of free enterprise, free will, prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, and the building of Western civilization by the Catholic Church.

No problem with that, but it doesn’t make the reality of the situation go away.

 

[Warrior1979]

The problem is when they announce the biggest oil find ever as they did a few months ago. New oil finds just keeps happening.

The amount of oil is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether it can be extracted in a cost effective matter.

Most people view all oil as the same. That is an absolutely false assumption, and the reason why people come to erroneous conclusions.

 

[Warrior1979]

A growing economy is what is needed, and yes human beings are what do it. Those are the facts. Yes, we kill babies, and yes that is a reason for our economic woes. To call it a bail out is a strange way to put it.

Is this what God commanded…we NEED a growing economy…I missed that part of the Catechism. Fact is, population can’t grow us out of our economic woes if we continue to exponential increases our cost per person, no matter how many children we have. That’s 9th grade math.

Futhermore, there are primitive societies that have ZPG, because natural resources limit their population. One thing in common with these societies is that they haven’t created an unsustainable environment for themselves, unlike most modern societies.

 

[TimothyH]

to be “Catholic” in practice and NOT name only; TWO critical points must be mage.

Point One: God ALONE demands His Soverign rights to cotroal ALL life and eath issues:

Birth is Controlled by God

Genesis 4:1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,’ she said

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born,** not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “**

**Gen.38: 6-10 “And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah’s first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah [the Father of both sons] said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also. **

Point Two: God sets infront of us ONLY One real choice:

**Deut.30: 19 “**I [GOD] call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,”

Either we alone are in charge of our lives
or God is in charge of our lives. The responsibility cannot be shared.

God Bless you,
Pat [PJM]

Contraception has created a society of immediate sexual gratification, the result of which is an insatiable demand for porn and abortion, with a whole generation of children growing up in homes without fathers.

Meanwhile, people on CAF are arguing about how much oil is in the ground and God is bearing in mind the blessings and curses of his covenant, which this time was made not with the blood of animals, but with the blood of his only begotten son.

Where is Jonah when you need him?

God help us, Pat.

-Tim-

 

[buffalo]

Is this what God commanded…we NEED a growing economy…I missed that part of the Catechism. Fact is, population can’t grow us out of our economic woes if we continue to exponential increases our cost per person, no matter how many children we have. That’s 9th grade math.

Futhermore, there are primitive societies that have ZPG, because natural resources limit their population. One thing in common with these societies is that they haven’t created an unsustainable environment for themselves, unlike most modern societies.

28And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Now if the population grows and there is no economic growth along with it - what happens?

 

[Warrior1979]

28And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Now if the population grows and there is no economic growth along with it - what happens?

Who knows? Your reference does not address my issue, nor does it have anything to do with the economy.

 

[StAnastasia]

Futhermore, there are primitive societies that have ZPG, because natural resources limit their population. One thing in common with these societies is that they haven’t created an unsustainable environment for themselves, unlike most modern societies.

The island of Tikopia in the South Pacific is only 1.2 square miles in extent. They managed to maintain a stable population of 1,200 people for 3,000 years, although by rather draconian means. However, they never faced starvation.

 

[cho_pilo]

What Do 40 Million Lost Lives Mean?

Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

Facts of Life: Chapter 20: The Demographic Impacts of Abortion: Impacts on Businesses and Schools

The Economic Cost of Abortion: $202 Billion in Lost Taxes

http://www.thecostofabortion.com/
The cost of abortion - calculations

Thanks for the sources. Any discussion of the total population capacity devolves into a discussion of how food(among other resources) should be distributed, who should make those decisions, etc. Also, what should be the level we try to balance around. A world population living similar to Western Europe / US is going to be a lot smaller then one living on a mostly grain/legume diet.

 

[Contarini]

Thank God for the creativity of free enterprise, free will, prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, and the building of Western civilization by the Catholic Church.

And yet the Catholic Church did not build Western civilization on “free enterprise.” Rodney Stark’s attempt to argue otherwise in The Victory of Reason founders on elementary misunderstandings like a total failure to recognize what medieval people meant by the term “human right.” His misreading of Augustine and Aquinas is downright embarrassing. (Perhaps you have some other authority in mind, but Stark is the one I have read.)

Nor did free will in traditional Christian thought mean what modern libertarians think it means.

Prudence, justice, and temperance are entirely opposed (in their traditional meanings) to modern capitalism.

You are using euphemistic language to glorify what the Christian tradition has historically regarded as a sinful disposition characterized by avarice and pride.

Edwin

 

[Nate13]

And yet the Catholic Church did not build Western civilization on “free enterprise.” Rodney Stark’s attempt to argue otherwise in The Victory of Reason founders on elementary misunderstandings like a total failure to recognize what medieval people meant by the term “human right.” His misreading of Augustine and Aquinas is downright embarrassing. (Perhaps you have some other authority in mind, but Stark is the one I have read.)

Nor did free will in traditional Christian thought mean what modern libertarians think it means.

Prudence, justice, and temperance are entirely opposed (in their traditional meanings) to modern capitalism.

You are using euphemistic language to glorify what the Christian tradition has historically regarded as a sinful disposition characterized by avarice and pride.

Edwin

Yes but how did their views compare to those they were against at the time? While their idea of justice may not have been perfect, was it not a whole lot better than the prominent views of justice at that time? Whether they had justice, temperance, and prudence completely figured out at that point doesn’t matter, because the point is that they championed the values that got us where we are today. Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thanks for the sources. Any discussion of the total population capacity devolves into a discussion of how food(among other resources) should be distributed, who should make those decisions, etc. Also, what should be the level we try to balance around. A world population living similar to Western Europe / US is going to be a lot smaller then one living on a mostly grain/legume diet.

Indeed, and that is the difficulty of estimating carrying capacity. But food is not the only factor, although is is a crucial one. Climate change is already contributing to the melting of major Himalayan glaciers, which threatens to put at risk the consistent water supply of three billion Asians who rely on the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Yellow, Yangtse and Irawaddi Rivers.

 

[buffalo]

Indeed, and that is the difficulty of estimating carrying capacity. But food is not the only factor, although is is a crucial one. Climate change is already contributing to the melting of major Himalayan glaciers, which threatens to put at risk the consistent water supply of three billion Asians who rely on the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Yellow, Yangtse and Irawaddi Rivers.

**[Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Some-Himalayan-glaciers-are-advancing-rather-than-melting-study-finds.html)**

	 	** Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice    flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather    than shrinking.   **

http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/himilayan_glacier.jpg

 

[Warrior1979]

Some Himalayan glaciers are advancing rather than melting, study finds

	 	** Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice    flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather    than shrinking.   **

We can all use cut and paste to quickly post things that we believe support our opinion. However, reading and comprehending it is another story.

The basic issue is that certain glaciers have debris on them that give them some protection from melting. It is limited to that particular group of glaciers, and does not state that other glaciers are not melting, which, or course, they are.

 

[buffalo]

We can all use cut and paste to quickly post things that we believe support our opinion. However, reading and comprehending it is another story.

The basic issue is that certain glaciers have debris on them that give them some protection from melting. It is limited to that particular group of glaciers, and does not state that other glaciers are not melting, which, or course, they are.

StA claimed they were melting. I countered with - no they ain’t.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA claimed they were melting. I countered with - no they ain’t.

You are wrong – they are melting, as is the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap.

 

[Nate13]

You are wrong – they are melting, as is the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap.

Sea levels are not rising though.
foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/sea-level-rise-global-warming/
You can’t beat real observations.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sea levels are not rising though.
foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/sea-level-rise-global-warming/
You can’t beat real observations.

Sea level is indeed rising. Fox news is the mouthpiece of the religious and political right, so naturally they will discount science, and their news pieces are relatively worthless.

"Most of the world’s coastal cities were established during the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant. Since the mid-19th century, sea level has been rising, likely primarily as a result of human-induced climate change. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15-20 centimeters (roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm/year), with the rate at the end of the century greater than over the early part of the century (8, 9). Satellite measurements taken over the past decade, however, indicate that the rate of increase has jumped to about 3.1 mm/year, which is significantly higher than the average rate for the 20th century (10). Projections suggest that the rate of sea level rise is likely to increase during the 21st century, although there is considerable controversy about the likely size of the increase. As explained in the next section, this controversy arises mainly due to uncertainties about the contributions to expect from the three main processes responsible for sea level rise: thermal expansion, the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (11). "

climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

 

[You]

Sea level is indeed rising. Fox news is the mouthpiece of the religious and political right, so naturally they will discount science, and their news pieces are relatively worthless.

"Most of the world’s coastal cities were established during the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant. Since the mid-19th century, sea level has been rising, likely primarily as a result of human-induced climate change. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15-20 centimeters (roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm/year), with the rate at the end of the century greater than over the early part of the century (8, 9). Satellite measurements taken over the past decade, however, indicate that the rate of increase has jumped to about 3.1 mm/year, which is significantly higher than the average rate for the 20th century (10). Projections suggest that the rate of sea level rise is likely to increase during the 21st century, although there is considerable controversy about the likely size of the increase. As explained in the next section, this controversy arises mainly due to uncertainties about the contributions to expect from the three main processes responsible for sea level rise: thermal expansion, the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (11). "

climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

I think its great that the ice is finally melting. We are still just coming out of the last ice-age. We are still warming up. Scotland is still bouncing back up after the pressure of ice kilometers high was taken off it. I don’t know what the globe was like before the ice-age began or what sparked the ice-age. Change is part of nature, nothing stays still.

 

[Nate13]

Sea level is indeed rising. Fox news is the mouthpiece of the religious and political right, so naturally they will discount science, and their news pieces are relatively worthless.

"Most of the world’s coastal cities were established during the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant. Since the mid-19th century, sea level has been rising, likely primarily as a result of human-induced climate change. During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15-20 centimeters (roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm/year), with the rate at the end of the century greater than over the early part of the century (8, 9). Satellite measurements taken over the past decade, however, indicate that the rate of increase has jumped to about 3.1 mm/year, which is significantly higher than the average rate for the 20th century (10). Projections suggest that the rate of sea level rise is likely to increase during the 21st century, although there is considerable controversy about the likely size of the increase. As explained in the next section, this controversy arises mainly due to uncertainties about the contributions to expect from the three main processes responsible for sea level rise: thermal expansion, the melting of glaciers and ice caps, and the loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets (11). "

climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html

Your results do not explain how they were come by. The study I posted was done by measuring sea level rise at 156 different places around the globe for a period of 10 years. I really don’t understand how this can be such a contested point. However from what I have seen of how the study I posted was done it appears to have been a very solid study. If you information as to how this study is flawed please provide it. I question results that don’t explain the methods used to come by them.

Also at 2mm per year it would take 350 years to put the Maldives Islands under water. Even at generous estimates for our fossil fuels we don’t have enough to keep us going for even half of this time. It would take closer to 500 years to put the Netherlands under water at that rate. Point being why don’t you wait about 50 years and then come back with the data to show that your right? That should leave plenty of time left for us to do something about it 100mm of sea rise would be hard to miss.