Overpopulation and the right to have children

[GEddie]

At present the entire earth isn’t hospitable to sustained human life. There are some places with rather extreme conditions in which people have either lived for short periods, or people live with resources imported from other parts of the world (Ex: Antarctica). So no, people don’t need to occupy the entire earth to sustain their life.

But the Texas analogy tells nothing about actual sustained needs. If you have a population concentrated in such a small space then what happens when a disease breaks out? There’s quite the opportunity for a viral disease to spread quickly and little opportunity to contain it; there’s no borders to shut down. What about fluctuations in water supply? Is there enough water in Texas to sustain the entire human population? As things stand now there are some parts of Alabama and Florida that get their water needs from Georgia (not to mention that Georgia must meet it’s own water needs).

For now if I accept the statement that the world’s human population could fit in Texas as fact that doesn’t tell me that the worlds population would be able to get sufficient resources for living in Texas. In other words, as far as I can tell this fact reveals no new information with respect to this discussion.

No one is suggesting that everybody congregate into TX. That would be an insane prospect, as half the state is marginal, or less, for permanent settlement.

(And having millions of miles of sovereign borders didn’t do much against the 1918 flu or AIDS for that matter.)

RAther, the suggestion was that the ratio of available square mileage, versus what would be available if everybody lived in TX, would seem to argue that the world is not overpopulated.

ICXC NIKA

 

[triumphguy]

And this is a hypothetical ideal situation, not a real one.

Which “this?” Your “this”? My “this”

 

[zro_x]

Which “this?” Your “this”? My “this”

I was refering to the hypothetical scenario I gave in which abortion and contraception are abolished. you challenged it in post 39.

Sorry for being unclear.

 

[triumphguy]

I was refering to the hypothetical scenario I gave in which abortion and contraception are abolished. you challenged it in post 39.

Sorry for being unclear.

OK - if abortion and contraception were abolished - then why couldn’t that correspond to the proper use of NFP, and a decline in sex (and children) outside of marriage?

Another thought - maybe we our denying ourselves our destiny as a race if we do not keep growing. Perhaps there are worlds waiting to be settled, which will never be settled if we all stay here on earth in an ever shrinking population?

“Over” population has changed history many times in the past.

 

[Pugsly]

5 Causes of Declining Fertility Rates and/or Populations.
None of these causes can easily be changed.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

What are the signs of hope?

1. Academic hope
   a. Academicians are in recent years recognizing the dangers population decline represents.
   b. Academicians are also now recognizing the importance of families.
2. 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.

 

[zro_x]

OK - if abortion and contraception were abolished - then why couldn’t that correspond to the proper use of NFP, and a decline in sex (and children) outside of marriage?

An interesting thought; I hadn’t considered that. But it would also correspond to an increase in marriages and children within those marriages. And NFP isn’t as effective as contraception, is it?

Another thought - maybe we our denying ourselves our destiny as a race if we do not keep growing. Perhaps there are worlds waiting to be settled, which will never be settled if we all stay here on earth in an ever shrinking population?

Very possibly, but in that case, we should grow when we have the technological capacity to expand to other worlds.

 

[Jade17]

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than just birth rates.

Overpopulation is really about carrying capacity - given the resources earth has to offer, how many people can it sustain before it fails? We depend on functioning ecosystems to provide us with services we need, such as filtering water into our aquifers. The New York Times did an article a few years ago on putting a value to these ecosystem services:
time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1970173,00.html

So, although we may see plenty of shrimp in the sea, we can’t harvest them all. We have to leave a certain number to stay and breed, otherwise we deplete that resource, which could have been a food for a fish we also eat, and a chain effect begins. This subject can’t be approached by assuming that every tree in the forest can be used; we have to ask, what percentage? This percentage should be determined by the amount that must remain to keep that ecosystem productive. When the human population puts too much pressure on these ecosystems (through use, pollution, or general degradation), we lose the benefits they once provided us with. That reduces our carrying capacity, and therefore makes overpopulation a very legitimate concern.

 

[OxygenMan]

Increasingly, it will be that people living in First World nations will gradually have a lower standard of living. But I would rather live in that fashion than see people starve.

 

[mymamamary]

At present the entire earth isn’t hospitable to sustained human life. There are some places with rather extreme conditions in which people have either lived for short periods, or people live with resources imported from other parts of the world (Ex: Antarctica). So no, people don’t need to occupy the entire earth to sustain their life.

But the Texas analogy tells nothing about actual sustained needs. If you have a population concentrated in such a small space then what happens when a disease breaks out? There’s quite the opportunity for a viral disease to spread quickly and little opportunity to contain it; there’s no borders to shut down. What about fluctuations in water supply? Is there enough water in Texas to sustain the entire human population? As things stand now there are some parts of Alabama and Florida that get their water needs from Georgia (not to mention that Georgia must meet it’s own water needs).

For now if I accept the statement that the world’s human population could fit in Texas as fact that doesn’t tell me that the worlds population would be able to get sufficient resources for living in Texas. In other words, as far as I can tell this fact reveals no new information with respect to this discussion.

Well, people are dispersed at quite a good ratio in the world today. The birth rates are telling us that if for e.g Spain continues as She is, She will die out in 20 years. Here in Canada, the fear is starting to be: Who will pay for the pension of our seniors as my generation, and those coming are small (Canada has one of the lowest birthrates, add to that abortion on demand and contraception, You have a recipe for disaster). I’m not so worried about becoming so compact that a virus will destroy the world, I am worried about living to see whole nations, peoples and cultures die out due to underpopulation. Even the UN has a word to say about it.

lifenews.com/2010/03/05/int-1479/

 

[GEddie]

Well, people are dispersed at quite a good ratio in the world today. The birth rates are telling us that if for e.g Spain continues as She is, She will die out in 20 years. Here in Canada, the fear is starting to be: Who will pay for the pension of our seniors as my generation, and those coming are small (Canada has one of the lowest birthrates, add to that abortion on demand and contraception, You have a recipe for disaster). I’m not so worried about becoming so compact that a virus will destroy the world, I am worried about living to see whole nations, peoples and cultures die out due to underpopulation. Even the UN has a word to say about it.

lifenews.com/2010/03/05/int-1479/

20 years, that’s got to be a typo, you must mean 200???

ICXC NIKA

 

[SonSearcher]

He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. That command doesn’t necessarily apply to us. God told Noah to build an arc, but that doesn’t mean he expects us to, as well.

or alternatively, the people who will compound the problems. Some of these lives are also prevented by the very same choices. They prevent the births of a few benevolent geniuses, but they prevent the births of just as many villians.

We build upside down arcs everywhere they are called churches. plus considering your signature and other posts it seems you just go for a contrary viewpoint. Of course you will argue this, with an opposing point.

If you are truly Catholic I don’t think you can argue about births of villains, and argue the point that overpopulation means we can just ignore the moral teaching on life that our Church presents.

And honestly I can’t say I agree with a strictly conservative American world view either. It isn’t just about abortion it is about quality of life, the horror of the death penalty, suicide, infanticide, welfare reform, whatever needs to be done. But I have to say it doesn’t just come down to the problem of overpopulation. The world was created and it was good. It will always be enough. Trust in God.

I expect a good “devil’s advocate” answer

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Below is a hefty excerpt from the book “The Emperor Wears No Clothes”

Clean, Renewable Fuel Source

Fuel is not synonymous with petroleum and coal. Biomass energy systems can supply a sustainable source of fuel and will create millions of new clean jobs. Hemp biomass derived fuels and oils can replace every type of fossil fuel energy product.

During transpiration, the growig hemp plants “breathe in” CO2 (carbon dioxide) to build cell structure; the leftover oxygen is breathed out, replenishing Earth’s air supply. Then when the carbon rich hemp biomass is burned for energy the CO2 is released back into the air. The CO2 cycle comes close to ecological balance when the new fuel crop is grown the next year. Growing trees keeps 10 times the carbon dioxide in the Earth by keeping the infrastructure of the microbes, insects, plants, fungi, etc. alive for each tree. The older and bigger the tree, the more carbon dioxide is kept out of the atmostphere.

(Not all of the biomass crop gets converted into fuels. Some leaves, stalk stubble and all of the roots remain in the field as crop residues. This carbon rich organic matter adds to the soil fertility, and with each passing season a little more carbon dioxide from the air enters to soil, so the biomass fuel crops slowly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide from our polluted atmosphere.)

Biomass conversion through pyrolysis (applying high heat to organic material in the absence of air or in reduced air) produces clean burning charcoal to replace coal. Sulfur emitted from coal fired boiler smokestacks is the primary cause of acid rain. Measuring acidity on the pH scale, the rainfall in New England often falls between household vinegar and lemon juice. This is bad for every cell membrane the rain comes in contact with, doing the most harm to the simplest life forms. Charcoal contains no sulfur, so when it is burned for industry no sulfur is emitted from the process.

The biomass “cracking” process also produces non-sulfur fuel oils capable of replacing fossil fuel oils such as diesel oil. And the net atmospheric CO2 doesn’t rise when biomass derived fuel oils are burned.

Pyrolysis uses the same “cracking” technology employed by the petroleum industry in processing fossil fuels. The gasses that remain after the charcoal and fuel oils are extracted from hemp can be used for driving electric power co-generators, too!

This biomass conversion process can be adjusted to produce charcoal, methanol and fuel oils to process steam, as well as chemicals important to industry: acetone, ethyl acetate, tar, pitch and creosote.

The Ford Moto Co. successfully operated a biomass “cracking” plant in the 1930s at Iron Mountain, Michigan, using trees for cellulose fuels. (Earth-friendly hemp is at least four times as efficient as trees for fuel, and is sustainable.)

“Progress in Biomass Conversion” Vol. 1, Sarkanen & Tillman, editors; Energy Farming in America, Osburn, Lynn, Access Unlimited.

Hempseed contains 30% (by volume) oil. This oil has been used to make high-grade diesel fuel oil and aircraft engine and precision machine oil. Throughout history, hempseed oil was used for lighting in oil lamps. Legend says the genie’s lamp burned hempseed oil, as did Abraham the prophet’s. In Abraham Lincoln’s time only whale oil came near hempseed oil in popularity for fuel.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Cont’d

Biomass for Energy Abundance

Hemp stems are 80% hurds (pulp byproduct after the hemp fiber is removed from the plant). Hemp hurds are 77% cellulose - a primary chemical feed stock (industrial raw material) used in the production of chemicals, plastics and fibers. Depending on which U.S. agricultural report is correct, an acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane - the planet’s next highest annual cellulose plants.

In most places, hemp can be harvested twice a year and, in warmer areas such as Southern California, Texas, Florida and the like, it could be a year-round crop. Hemp has a short growing season and can be planted after food crops have been harvested.

An independent, semi-rural network of efficient and autonomous farmers should become the key economic player in the production of energy in this country.

The United States government pays (in cash or in “kind”) for farmers to refrain from growing on approximately 90 million acres of farmland each year, called the “soil bank.” And 10-90 million acres of hemp or other woody annual biomass planted on this restricted, unplanted fallow farmland (our Soil Bank) would make energy a whole new ball game and be a real attempt at doing something to save the Earth. There are another 500 million marginal unplanted acres of farmland in America.

Each acre of hemp would yield 1,000 gallons of methanol. Fuels from hemp, along with the recyclingof paper, etc., would be enough to run American virtually without oil.

Family Farms or Fossil Fuels?

In 2000, when our petroleum resources have dwindled to 20% of their original size, America will have 6 choices to avoid economic and environmental ruin:

• Use more coal, further polluting the environment;

• Continue to fund nuclear power and risk annihilation of the planet.

• Convert forests into fuel, permanently altering life sustaining ecosystems;

• Continually wage wars over foreign oil;

• Build massive wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy systems;

• Establish energy farms to grow biomass fuels.

The last two choices are the only rational, life sustaining choices.

Farming only 6% of continential U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America’s gas and oil energy needs, ending dependence upon fossil fuels.

Manahan, Stanley E., Environmental Chemistry, 4th edition.

Hemp is Earth’s number one biomass resource; it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre in four months. Hemp is easy on the soil,* sheds its lush foliage throughout the season, adding mulch to the soil and helping retain moisture. Hemp is an ideal crop for the semi-arid West and open range land.

• Adam Beatty, vice president of the Kentucky Agricultural Society, reported instances of good crops of hemp on the same ground for 14 years in a row without a decline in yield. Betty, A., Southern Agriculture, C.M. Saxton & Co., NY: 1843, pg. 113. USDA Yearbook, 1913.

Hemp is the only biomass source available that is capable of making the U.S. energy independent. Ultimately, the world has no other rational enfironmental choice but to give up fossil fuels.

So, What’s the Catch?

The “catch” is obvious: The energy companies! They own must of the petrochemical, pharmaceutical, liquor, and tobacco companies, and are intertwined with insurance companies and banks.

According to the press, many politicians now in power are bought and paid for by the energy companies, and their U.S. government arm is the CIA - “The Company” - (Robert Ludlum, etc.). The Bush/Quayle Administration was uniquely tied to oil, newspapers, pharmaceuticals - and the CIA.

The world struggle for money is actually a struggle for energy, as it is through energy that we may produce food, shelter, transportation and entertainment. It is this struggle which often erupts into open war. If we remove the cause, these conflicts may never occur.

(Carl Sagan; and U.S. EPA prediction, 1983, of worldwide disaster in the making with 30 to 50 years.)

 

[GEddie]

I think the issue is a bit more complicated than just birth rates.

Overpopulation is really about carrying capacity - given the resources earth has to offer, how many people can it sustain before it fails? We depend on functioning ecosystems to provide us with services we need, such as filtering water into our aquifers. The New York Times did an article a few years ago on putting a value to these ecosystem services:
time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1970173,00.html

So, although we may see plenty of shrimp in the sea, we can’t harvest them all. We have to leave a certain number to stay and breed, otherwise we deplete that resource, which could have been a food for a fish we also eat, and a chain effect begins. This subject can’t be approached by assuming that every tree in the forest can be used; we have to ask, what percentage? This percentage should be determined by the amount that must remain to keep that ecosystem productive. When the human population puts too much pressure on these ecosystems (through use, pollution, or general degradation), we lose the benefits they once provided us with. That reduces our carrying capacity, and therefore makes overpopulation a very legitimate concern.

I don’t think anybody is denying that overpopulation is possible. This is not global warming, after all.

The Earth has only a finite size. Only a minuscule fraction of its mass can go into life; and only a minuscule fraction of that can go into human bodies, so clearly there is a maximum human population. In fact, quality of life issues will flatten out the population long before that.

The question is not, “can overpopulation happen,” but “does it exist now,” and, if that answer is yes, “what to do about it?”

It is doubtful that the Chinese pattern of enforced population control is at all acceptable outside of China, or that anything else would flatten or lower an exploding population.

In any case, this world is flattening out in P. Whatever the limit is, we aren’t seeing it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I agree that greed is the problem. I also agree that solving the energy crisis will solve the ‘overpopulation’ issue.

 

[ericc]

According to Google, there are roughly 6.973 billion people on earth. According to Wikipedia, the land-area of Texas is 268,581 square miles. If the entire population of the world lived in Texas, the population density would be 25,962 people per square mile; as a comparison, the population density of Brooklyn NY is 36,356 people per square mile. That is, the entire world could fit into Texas and be less crowded than Brooklyn, it would take 9.75 billion people in Texas to match Brooklyn’s population density.

I think the issue is resources. According to FarmlandLP, it takes roughly 1 acre to feed 1 person each year (I have seen some people suggest it would be about a quarter of this value if we are not raising grazing animals like cows). Our planet has just under 8 billion acres of arable land, so we might be physically limited to that number as a total population.

Terraforming I think should be the next big thing for science.

You are forgetting food from the sea, inland lakes, rivers etc. If that is built into the equation, wonder what would be the land requirement.

I think we need to define over-population. Except for small land deprived countries such as Singapore, Monaco? or special cases like Hong Kong, I don’t believe it is insufficient land per capita.

If you look at countries receiving food-aid, I see mostly countries suffering from 1) war 2) misgovernance 3) natural disasters in Africa and Asia. You see pockets of “over-population” in cities but that is more to do with people looking for better economic opportunities. So I think it is a population redistribution issue. Food aid provided by richer Western countries coupled by subsidies provided by their governments may actually distort the economics of food production in the poorer countries leading to even less food production efforts by these poor countries.

And if you include food wastage on a global basis, is there truly a food deficiency issue?

Ironically during the last century advances in medical and agriculture has lead to increased population. Tragically those countries with improved mortality rates in Africa are not blessed by peace and prosperity although some of those countries do have plenty of natural resources. War, mismanagement i.e. corruption, greed are major causes. I am just an interested observer and clearly not an expert in overpopulation. But my personal feelings on possible solution to those suffering countries is 1) Initial foreign aid + education 2) At some point, remove crutches of foreign aid. Politics is a different animal altogether. I am not sure whether democracy is appropriate at certain stages of a country’s development. Especially, when there are ethnic and religious considerations and maturity of the people has to be considered.

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs report (2004) projects the world population to peak at 9.22 billion in 2075.(source wikipedia). So , let’s find food and water for 9.22 billion people and we are all set!

 

[zro_x]

We build upside down arcs everywhere they are called churches. plus considering your signature and other posts it seems you just go for a contrary viewpoint. Of course you will argue this, with an opposing point.

Darn right!

wait, I just agreed with you …

but honestly, you don’t even need to be a devil’s advocate to argue that point. We build structures that occasionally appear similar to upside-down arcs, but have a completely different function and intent. when the builder builds the church, he doesn’t think, “I’m going to build a gigantic, upside-down boat for people to worship in.” No, he thinks, "I’m going to build a church. God wouldn’t care in the slightest if we changed the shape of our churches.

If you are truly Catholic I don’t think you can argue about births of villains, and argue the point that overpopulation means we can just ignore the moral teaching on life that our Church presents.

The point of the births of villians doesn’t necessarily contradict catholic teaching, it only nullifies the argument that abortion is evil paritally because of the fact that some Mozart or Einstien won’t be born.

In any case, I don’t know of any Catholic infallible dogma to back most of the Pro-life movement. (If someone *does *know of some dogma that confirms the Pro-life movement, let me know!) If there is no infallible dogma about it, then it could be wrong, in which case it is our duty as rational Catholic human beings to either set the ship straight or come to a rational understanding of why it is already straight.

I expect a good “devil’s advocate” answer

And hopefully, you got one. Sorry if I go on a tangent here for a while, but I want to be clear about why I’m giving a contrary view. It isn’t solely for the sake of being contrary or to get a high from stiring the pot. In this particular case, I actually believe the view I’m putting forward (to clarify, I believe abortion is probably wrong but that there might be room for contraception), but I often give the opposing view because either there aren’t any atheists around to give it, or else I see what I consider to be some rational flaw that needs fixing in the theistic arguments, which would be exactly what an atheist would pounce on. As catholics, our highest duty is to save as many souls as possible, and in order to do that, we have to get rid of our bad arguments. That way our good arguments will be far more convincing.

 

[GEddie]

Abortion is not wrong because “some Mozart or Einstein won’t be born,” and serious abortion fighters do not use that argument.

Abortion is wrong because human life is human life, and should not be taken by another (with specific exceptions such as self defense, war, or the death penalty).

ICXC NIKA

 

[zro_x]

Abortion is not wrong because “some Mozart or Einstein won’t be born,” and serious abortion fighters do not use that argument.

Abortion is wrong because human life is human life, and should not be taken by another (with specific exceptions such as self defense, war, or the death penalty).

ICXC NIKA

I realize that, but I still hear the argument used as an additional reason. SonSearcher used it here in this thread.

 

[triumphguy]

An interesting thought; I hadn’t considered that. But it would also correspond to an increase in marriages and children within those marriages. And NFP isn’t as effective as contraception, is it?
**
I think NFP is as effective as many common forms of contraception.**

Very possibly, but in that case, we should grow when we have the technological capacity to expand to other worlds.

What comes first - the chicken or the egg? Necessity is the mother of invention!