T
tonyrey
Guest
How can we solve the problem of overpopulation - assuming there is or will be a problem?
- Status
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
To be quite honest, population control feels like another act of “compassionate” imperialism–as if non-white people are too stupid to solve their own problems. Especially when Western nations sometimes only give aid if developing countries that agree to implement population control policies. Those who say the world is overpopulated act as if they are the real owners of the world. Malthus formulated his theory quite a while ago, but we are still surviving despite being “overpopulated”. I think overpopulation is an excuse by the super wealthy (billionaires who wield too much influence culturally) to hide that the nature of the problem is one of distribution and not of lack of resources.
What do you think about this?
thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
What do you think about this?
thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
There is no overpopulation problem. Don’t believe the lie.
L
Lisa1967
Guest
I have heard that educating girls and women is effective in reducing the size of families.
I do believe that we have an overpopulation problem. The world has finite resources and we are now at 7 billion people.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Whether we have an overpopulation problem at present is a matter of scientific discussion but philosophically, and theologically as Catholics, let us imagine there may very well be one in the near future - this is certainly a live possibility.
Is there an ethical means by which birth rates can be controlled without use to contraceptive methods and/or abortion?
Certainly. NFP already allows for the spacing of children for legitimate reasons. Well, if certain countries had problems with overpopulation, I suggest it would be morally legitimate to thereby limit the birthrate using NFP since issues of overpopulation must be considered legitimate reasons both on the micro and macro levels.
If scientists and physicians (and those who are Christians in particular) were serious about dealing with a potential population problem in a moral way, more research should go into making NFP more effective.
Is there an ethical means by which birth rates can be controlled without use to contraceptive methods and/or abortion?
Certainly. NFP already allows for the spacing of children for legitimate reasons. Well, if certain countries had problems with overpopulation, I suggest it would be morally legitimate to thereby limit the birthrate using NFP since issues of overpopulation must be considered legitimate reasons both on the micro and macro levels.
If scientists and physicians (and those who are Christians in particular) were serious about dealing with a potential population problem in a moral way, more research should go into making NFP more effective.
F
Fr_P
Guest
I believe the world has enough resources if we would not be so greedy and share.
If you compare population by square mile, you discover that the places where there is a serious overpopulation problem are the western industrial nations. So why is it that the mass contraception, sterilisation and abortion projects are directed at the underdeveloped world where in reality they have less population per square mile? Imperialism?
If you compare population by square mile, you discover that the places where there is a serious overpopulation problem are the western industrial nations. So why is it that the mass contraception, sterilisation and abortion projects are directed at the underdeveloped world where in reality they have less population per square mile? Imperialism?
P
Pugsly
Guest
- The entire population of the planet could fit in the state of Texas with enough room for a house and atleast a third to a half acre of land depending on average family size.
- The “finite resources” argument always makes me smile…Yes, the world and humans are a finite creation with a finite time before this finite planet burns. However, trees are still producing, plants still renewing more seed, fish still breeding…etc…in seemingly unlimited patterns of self-renewal. Water, for example, doesn’t disappear after I drink it.
- The godless philosophy of the world is fear-based. It is defensively worried about survival, manipulation and domination. This god-free philosophy is growing rapidly in Western civilization. Therefore, when someone today makes a statement, dripping in fear,…about this “world ending” crisis or that…please stay calm and study it further.
P
Pugsly
Guest
These are good points.
As for population density in localized areas…I flew into Mexico City the other night. The plane took off out of San Diego and we went over more than a thousand miles of a few sprinkled lights here and there in the land below…then we arrived at one of the most populated cities in the world. The lights below were like flying into Las Vegas for 30 minutes.
G
GEddie
Guest
Overpopulation is not a matter of some magic number. It is dependent on a whole constellation of physical and societal conditions.
The Earth could conceivably hold ten times the current population, if it had a world government that ensured just allocation of resources, and sufficient usable energy.
Conversely, if forced into a “back to nature society,” the world would already be several hundred times overpopulated.
But whether there is overpopulation or not, there is no such thing as a right to children. Children are a matter of the will of God.
ICXC NIKA
The Earth could conceivably hold ten times the current population, if it had a world government that ensured just allocation of resources, and sufficient usable energy.
Conversely, if forced into a “back to nature society,” the world would already be several hundred times overpopulated.
But whether there is overpopulation or not, there is no such thing as a right to children. Children are a matter of the will of God.
ICXC NIKA
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
B
bitznbitez
Guest
A growing number of nations, and it will only increase, have nuclear weapons. Massive depopulation will happen sooner or later, its inevitable.
G
GEddie
Guest
Not so. In fact, except for the USA, the “western industrialized nations” have been losing people for some time. We would, too, were it not for immigration.
The effects of population pressure are seen mostly in Asia, Africa, and In parts of South America, not in the West.
ICXC NIKA
F
Fr_P
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
No it is not. Man can work together and share resources. Why do big banks engage in usury, enslaving poor nations with debt, rather than doing the real charity of giving aid away freely? Why so many preconditions? It is not out of benevolence to help the poor by culling them.
It only seems inevitable because those few billionaire elites make a big ruckus about impending doomsday. By using fear of losing our living standards, they keep us from realizing who the real criminals are.
Do you think that maybe Ted Turner, Gates, et. al do not want us to realize one day that everyone can live a comfortable life if we could see reality clearer? Most people would agree that excessive wealth is wrong, and if people realize that they would have the most to lose.
S
SonSearcher
Guest
I feel there are certain resources that are finite. For example coal, oil, gold, diamonds…etc.
But these are not required for life. The industrial revolution has made us weak… and we are worrisome over the earths resources.
Trees can heat, they are not finite. Seeds bring plants they are not finite.
Water is the biggest problem. As it is finite and quality sources are being polluted and bought. So would agree about that. If we don’t fix the water thing we could really mess things up.
But God put us here and said “be fruitful and multiply.” He didn’t add “of course until you think there are too many people and then go ahead and stop.”
G
GEddie
Guest
Gold and diamonds are limited, but they are needed mostly as treasure, not as physical resources.
Oil and coal are limited and, guess what, we NEED those. It is not a matter of the industrial revolution “making us weak”. It is a matter of there is just not enough land on the planet for everybody to be growing food. For that, we are ALREADY many times overpopulated.
Trees are limited, in that they take many years to grow. If you have too much demand for fire, trees become a vanishing resource. The USA deforested a huge chunk of NA in the 1800s.
Water is finite, but it is still 71% of the planet’s surface. If we have energy, we can have abundant water.
ICXC NIKA
Oil and coal are limited and, guess what, we NEED those. It is not a matter of the industrial revolution “making us weak”. It is a matter of there is just not enough land on the planet for everybody to be growing food. For that, we are ALREADY many times overpopulated.
Trees are limited, in that they take many years to grow. If you have too much demand for fire, trees become a vanishing resource. The USA deforested a huge chunk of NA in the 1800s.
Water is finite, but it is still 71% of the planet’s surface. If we have energy, we can have abundant water.
ICXC NIKA
S
SonSearcher
Guest
We didn’t need oil and coal until 1800, that is a mighty long time to survive without something you state “we need.” There is plenty of land all over the world. I am sorry too but regardless of how “limited” trees are they are not finite no matter how long it takes to grow them. We deforested by misuse not by a need. We use more trees today than we ever have, yet when I look around I still see a whole bunch.
You are correct about one thing 71% of the earths surface is water. But how much of that is usable? Salt water? Polluted by agriculture? under ice? unreachable?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
I would argue there is no global overpopulation problem.
A great deal of data supports this. See this video for a summary of the issue: The Demographic Winter. It is well worth watching in its entirety. Below this post I will put an outline I put together of the main arguments.
For more data, check out the CIA World Fact Book on:
• Total Fertility Rate. You’ll note it says “A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers.” That’s more precisely 2.1 children per woman of child-bearing age.
China is at 1.55
Russia 1.61
• Population Growth Rates.
Russia = –0.01 translates into a population loss of 14,251 per year.
This is not to deny that there are some particularly overcrowded cities and some great poverty in them.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
5 Causes of Declining Fertility Rates and/or Populations.
None of these causes can easily be changed.
None of these causes can easily be changed.
- Divorce Revolution
a. The change to no fault divorce led to a 20% increase in divorce rates. This increase means that fewer men and women can count on their spouses being there next year. This risk decreases the inclination and chance to have another child.
b. Modern economies are based on information and knowledge: not on physical strength, but mental command of different types of information and skills.
c. Although the majority mature well, children in single parent homes experience added pressures in growing up and this impacts their lives in multiple ways. It frequently lowers the opportunity to acquire the cognitive skills and life skills in school necessary to obtain a good paying job in this information-based economy.
d. The growing divorce culture is marked by a trend to value the happiness of the adults over the well-being of the children. - Prosperity
a. As countries become more prosperous, they tend to have fewer children.
b. Richer countries have more money to spend but also greater aspirations: to spend more money on themselves and their children; to live lives as individuals.
c. People are trending toward having fewer children and spending more on each child. Birth control and, if that fails, abortion are eliminating the “unwanted pregnancies.”
d. Never in history has economic prosperity been accompanied by depopulation.
E.g., as Japan’s population has aged beyond 48 yrs old its consumer spending has steadily declined. - Inaccurate Assumptions
a. Popularizers emphasized the so-called population explosion and associated dangers of urban sprawl, population density, etc.
b. Yet during the greatest population growth period in human history, the 20th century, food became cheaper by 70% and more abundant.
c. Modern economies need a certain number of working-age individuals and consumers to drive them. As these proportionately decline, the aging population that doesn’t produce but consumes more services from tax dollars becomes an increasing burden on the economy. - Working Women
a. While greater education and employment of women is in itself a good thing, it does mean that these women are usually marrying later and having fewer children. - Sexual Revolution - late 1960s into 1970s
a. Women become sexually active earlier and with more partners and delay marriage and having children.
b. Young men are no longer motivated to marry and assume marital responsibilities because they opt for sexual gratification alone in relationships of convenience for more and more of their lives. Consequently they marry later, have fewer children, and have an increased risk of divorce.
- Academic hope
a. Academicians are in recent years recognizing the dangers population decline represents.
b. Academicians are also now recognizing the importance of families. - Countries
Some of the worst-affected countries are taking multiple steps to support families.
They are realizing that even significant financial incentives to have more children are not working because the root problems stem from other forces (besides economics) that weaken the family: the five above.
M
mymamamary
Guest
- Status