D
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
It’s not self-contradictory, we just aren’t communicating well yet. Stage 3 in the era before contraceptives became cheap and respectable consisted of TFR’s in the 2 to 2.5 range. That’s a pretty stable, low population growth rate (especially when allowing for a certain inevitable amount of war and disease globally). What I call “stage 4” (my hypothesis, not found in demography texts) is what we actually see today in western nations: TFR stabilizing in the 1.5 range. A 1.5 TFR roughly drops population by half every 120 years.
As for your energy yield assertions, these are considerably offset by gains in efficiency in recent years. You’re probably correct that today’s profligate energy wastage can’t survive indefinitely. But I think you’re wrong that it necessarily must lead to a collapse anyways so no need to worry about demographic collapse. That’s Malthusian thinking and Malthusians have been right about as often as religious apocalypse date prediction nuts: never. You’re betting on a losing horse there.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Are you saying that great civilizations cannot learn from history and choose another path?
It would seem none have yet.
M
mikekle
Guest
It is true, as already mentioned, none have yet.
I think they CAN, but following thru on that is something else, our current situation is proof enough we have not learned from the past.
W
weller2
Guest
If, by your own admission, TFR=1.5 is stable, then why would it be catastrophic? I completely agree that transition from TFR>2.1 to TFR=1.5 may be rocky. However I do not see why: (a) the society wouldn’t adjust to operating at TRF=1.5 and (b) why the TFR=1.5 stage should persist infinitely and result in die-off. By your own numbers, 10-fold reduction of population would take maintaing 1.5 TFR for 400 years. In 400 years, the situation is going to be completely different anyway (cough global warming cough).
Malthusian predictions basically assume that there is no technological progress. So far, Malthusians have been wrong because we have been able to innovate out of the problem every time.
However, you have to remember that only educated people can innovate. If you had unchecked population growth, then you at some point you would be forced to redirect resources from educating people to feeding them, which would stop you ability to innovate.
Overpoulation is not a function of the number of people, it’s a function of number of people and HDI.
E
Elizium23
Guest
weller2, you are having an interesting discussion on whether or not the world is overpopulated. I have posed some questions to you that need answers; since this is a Catholic forum, we see all issues in the light of faith, and most of the solutions to overpopulation proposed by the world are incompatible with it. I would ask you then how we “solve” overpopulation since you clearly seem to believe that it is a problem.
W
weller2
Guest
The Catholic Church believes that contraception is an intrinsic evil, however it believes that nuclear war is NOT an intrinsic evil, and can be even considered just with enough lawyering. I’ll let you work out the implications.
After you’re done, please study this graph:
E
Elizium23
Guest
I’m really not interested in a graph by the pro-Population Control UN. They have proven they are part of the Culture of Death time and again.
So are you saying that the Catholic Church should endorse nuclear war as a solution to overpopulation? I suggest that jus in bello would forbid killing the innocent at any time. What solutions do you propose for killing the innocent would adequately control our population? Or do you feel confident that we could kill enough non-innocents to bring population into check? How would we separate them out and make sure there was no collateral damage?
W
weller2
Guest
Did you see the Culture of Life which flourishes in the slums of Rio de Janeiro?
All I’m saying is that Catholic thinking is that humans should reproduce uncontrollably, and when resource competition becomes too much, they can have a “just” war over who controls the resources, which will also reduce population as a collateral. Rinse and repeat in 20 years.
Worked well in middle ages, but not a good idea with modern weaponry.
E
Elizium23
Guest
You have a lot to learn about Catholic thinking.
M
manualman
Guest
No sir, I did NOT say that a 1.5 TFR is stable. What I said is that it appears that Stage 4 (again, my term) appears to have a long term TFR in the 1.5 range and that this result seems to occur in a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. 1.5 does NOT produce “stable outcomes” even if the TFR is “stable” at 1.5. Please attempt to comprehend the difference.
Your math is a little off, but not too badly. I built a rough spreadsheet results that assume a 1.5 TFR . For simplicity assume that we start with 10 billion evenly distributed into four cohort groups: 0-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-up. Then compute changes in 20 year increments where the TFR is multiplied by the 20-40 cohort to create the new -20 cohort. All other cohorts advance (the previous 60+ cohort dying off. This results in a calamitous population decline that can’t readily be reversed even if people want it to. Why not? Fairly simple. A population at or above 2.1 TFR has about one working age person for each elderly or child in the population. As fertility declines, the proportion of elderly increases a lot and the working age people shoulder the burden of caring for them which makes it hard to have more kids even if they are so inclined. The ratio of elderly to children eventually almost hits 2:1. It’s unlikely that TFR will INCREASE under such conditions. (This is ESPECIALLY the case if said elderly ran up the national debt to absurd levels when they were younger and ran the world).
Reading between the lines you seem to be relatively OK with the concept of a tenfold reduction in global population. Father forgive him, he knows not what he wishes for!
And btw, you gotta back up the nuclear war claim. Show me where the church approves nuclear weapons. By definition, such weapons are wantonly indiscriminate, which disqualifies them in most any case I can think of under the just war theory as I understand it.
M
manualman
Guest
Ah, I see now that you’re not interested in honest discussion and debate. Good luck with your demagoguery.
W
weller2
Guest
Of course that it can be reversed. All that it takes is killing off the 60+ cohort. Can easily happen in case of a major epidemic. Then the tax burden drops dramatically.
As the “Stage 4” society is unable to pay the ever-increasing debt, it is bound to have an economic crash, in which the debt will be anuled. Result: major drop in the tax burden.
Remember that contrary to some other things (like natural resources) debt doesn’t exist physically. Debt is a sum of contracts between people.
Please elaborate. We were doing just fine with 1B people aboard…
Here’s a discussion which proves that it is not clear-cut at all: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=774528
Without getting into technicalities of the just war doctine, I’d like to observe that there is an EXPLICIT rejection of ANY forms of: contraception (excluding NFP), abortion or euthanasia, but there is no such statement on WMDs. Also, abortion is excommunicable but nuking a city is not.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Nope.
W
weller2
Guest
Well. Please show me an official document which states that you have RESPONSIBILITY to avoid reproducing beyond your means to support the children.
The closest I see is the admission that you MAY, in the case of “proportionate reasons”, use NFP. This is however very different from saying that you SHOULD use NFP if you cannot afford any more children.
Basically, if you want to reproduce beyond your means, the Church has no problem with it.
The same applies at population level.
D
dshix
Guest
Weller, I’ve been watching this thread closely, and you’ve lose your credibility. Blown.
You aren’t functioning on facts, but on a pre-conceived notion towards which you throw any random idea that seems to agree with what you already believe. You are misrepresenting Church teaching and trying to use it in your argument, even though you appear to know little or nothing about it.
You cannot hope to convince us of your opinion if you argue in this manner. You really and truly don’t have a wish to have an honest discussion, in which you are willing to change your mind if proven wrong, and it is easy for us to sense that.
You aren’t functioning on facts, but on a pre-conceived notion towards which you throw any random idea that seems to agree with what you already believe. You are misrepresenting Church teaching and trying to use it in your argument, even though you appear to know little or nothing about it.
You cannot hope to convince us of your opinion if you argue in this manner. You really and truly don’t have a wish to have an honest discussion, in which you are willing to change your mind if proven wrong, and it is easy for us to sense that.
W
weller2
Guest
I welcome any corrections.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
True enough, civilization, like many of us as individuals, never seems to learn. God doesn’t give up on us, so I will not give up on the world. The American experiment is unique in world history, so maybe it’s reason enough for hoping for a different result. I’m not blind, however, and things don’t look so good at present. Maybe with enough Masses and rosaries, Mary can bring about the improbable for her Son.
B
Boy_Wonder
Guest
No!!!
- Status