Overpopulation thread: how many planets does your lifestyle require?

[Arandur]

(1) There is no evidence that the long-term carrying capacity of the planet is much larger than what it was before the discovery and application of fossil fuels. Nuclear would help somewhat, but there is a Hubbert’s peak for uranium as well, probably a century or so out. Fusion is a vague hope. Renewables depend upon liquid fossil fuels for manufacturing, installing, and maintaining their infrastructure.

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
See previous references to organic and conservation farming, including extensive FAO resources.
See previous references to known availability of vast amounts of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro) and fuels, as well as the ability to use that energy to synthesize fertilizers and other materials.
See previous references to the vast amount of combustible fuels that can provide for manufacturing well past our transition to alternatives, after which point their use will be minimal.

(2) Population reduction need not lead to impositions on human freedom. I have two children, and most of the families in our parish are two-child families. No one in my experience was “imposed upon” to limit their families to two.

Given societies’ records in attempts to control population, show me how you can possibly expect that any such attempt will not involve immoral impositions on human freedom.

“Just” having 2 children, btw, will not solve the population growth problem, much less reduce population levels to your mythic 1-3 billion. And such restrictions run counter to Church teachings in many respects.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I can’t believe this thread keeps going and going and going. After nearly a month of seeing this offensive topic, I wonder how much energy was spent to power all the computers so that a few people could repeatedly tell us about how over-population is reason why we use so much energy.

I thought about this thread when I saw a story in the news today telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html Headline reads “Contracepttion the cheapest way to combat climate change”

…(2) Population reduction need not lead to impositions on human freedom. I have two children, and most of the families in our parish are two-child families. No one in my experience was “imposed upon” to limit their families to two.

In my experience there is a great amount of pressure from society to limit family size. You probably don’t realize this because with two children the pressure hasn’t really kick in too far yet.

There was a time when I had one child, then two. Back then, the topic of contraception was often discussed with my mommy friends and at every medical appointment. Most parenting magazine contain articles and advertisements for contraception. One parenting magazine I read recently offered advice for “large families” from a mother of three. (When did three children become a “large family”?)

The pressure is subtle but real, and it increases as family size increases (up to a certain point.) No, population control may not be “imposed” on couples outside of China, but those of us who don’t voluntarily limit our families can tell you a few stories about societal pressure to limit our family size.

 

[StAnastasia]

I can’t believe this thread keeps going and going and going. After nearly a month of seeing this offensive topic, I wonder how much energy was spent to power all the computers so that a few people could repeatedly tell us about how over-population is reason why we use so much energy.

What’s offensive to one is not to another! Now the Duggar’s 19 children…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Now the Duggar’s 19 children…

…are all made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[StAnastasia]

…are all made in the image and likeness of God.

Yes - and?

 

[flyingfish]

There is plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
See previous references to organic and conservation farming, including extensive FAO resources.
See previous references to known availability of vast amounts of renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, hydro) and fuels, as well as the ability to use that energy to synthesize fertilizers and other materials.
See previous references to the vast amount of combustible fuels that can provide for manufacturing well past our transition to alternatives, after which point their use will be minimal.

You interpret all those things in a way that suits your worldview (and I realize you’re going to say the same thing right back to me). In reading the FAO/the studies about organic farming I don’t see this amazing way to indefinitely sustain great numbers of us.

The kinds of organic farming that were mentioned in the studies you linked were all different, some of them claimed to use 50% less fertilizer than conventional techniques. That kind of organic farming is just as unsustainable as the conventional because of dependence on fossil fuels.

Then the one study claimed that where conventional farming doesn’t have enough fertilizer and pesticide a conversion to organic farming would increase yield, but where it does have enough it would decrease yield. They did not provide data about what percentage of conventional farms don’t have enough fertilizer and pesticides. You made assumptions that it was every farm in every place that is not first world nations.

The only claim about what would happen if the whole world converted to organic farming was that 4 billion could be supported after forests and other habitats for living things other than ourselves were destroyed to be converted to farmland.

–

The solar/geothermal technologies you are talking about don’t exist in that form today. As they exist today they require fossil fuels. You’re essentially betting that by the time the fossil fuels run out we’ll have developed alternatives that can deliver huge amounts of cheap energy without requiring fossil fuels.

This is a risk, a bet, a hope. Today it is not fact.

Given societies’ records in attempts to control population, show me how you can possibly expect that any such attempt will not involve immoral impositions on human freedom.

“Just” having 2 children, btw, will not solve the population growth problem, much less reduce population levels to your mythic 1-3 billion. And such restrictions run counter to Church teachings in many respects.

None of us proposed that governments should force people to have only a certain number of children. (And governments generally won’t talk about this issue, because in many places more people is beneficial for the governments in terms of paying taxes, in terms of driving the economy through consumption and so on.)

We are talking about what would be moral, good, prudent for an individual to decide with respect to their own family.

I think that people should consider our future as a species, the well being of people in poorer nations, the survival of non-human life, the quality of life we can expect to have as factors in deciding how many children to have. That is all.

The Church never said which reasons are appropriate for the use of NFP and which aren’t. It has been left to the prayerful decision by the couple. I see no reason why the above consideration shouldn’t factor into a couple’s moral decision about the number of children they wish to have.

 

[fultonfish]

Case Study #2.

The reason why the peak oil argument gains traction is that something like 80% of the world’s oil production is mismanaged. Maybe even a larger percentage.

The reason why the world’s oil supply is mismanaged is that it is in the hands of governments, most of them totalitarian forms that govern by either cronyism or by kleptocracy. These forms of totalitarian / authoritarian government are inherently unable to do anything new or different. So all their thinking focuses on manipulating or restricting the existing supply rather than developing new supplies or new methods. Governments focus on static analysis rather than dynamic analysis. Government focus on control and taxation rather than on incentives.

Because they generally are unable to manage development and production, the oil fields in their hands are gradually declining.

At the risk of having folks cherry pick various discussion points, here is a source, one of many available that reinforce the 80% figure. Other sources give similar percentages.

So it again becomes an issue of a self-fulfilling argument: we have a peak oil situation because the advocates of the peak oil argument are unable to properly manage oil supply, development, production, and exploration. So, to avoid being tarred with the brush of incompetence, they blame “peak oil”.

flexiblefuelvehicleclub.org/whyyoudrive.asp

Keep in mind that flex fuel advocates see that there is an entirely new / different fuel chemistry available at low cost: methanol (and fuels similar in chemical form to methanol including so-called synfuel). And methanol can be easily produced or developed from sources other than edible food products. There are many Web sites that discuss methanol (and similar) production.

Our government/totalitarian advocates lack an education in basic chemistry and basic geology and as a result cannot see the huge sources and supplies of energy that are readily available for electric power, for heating, and for transportation.

What the peak oil advocates do is to repeat the discussion points by others who happen to be working for totalitarian governments or who have a vested interest in existing oil fields and existing oil development.

When one considers that there really is no limit to energy, only a limit to the imagination, then there is no reason to consider “overpopulation” as a legitimate issue.

 

[Arandur]

You interpret all those things in a way that suits your worldview (and I realize you’re going to say the same thing right back to me).

No, none of my personal interpretation was necessary! The FAO explicitly interprets things itself! It is not worried about our ability to meet our needs, only about meeting problems of regional food security due to poor distribution and impoverishing social orders!

This is where you are SO wrong. It is not MY worldview. It is the stated conclusion of the great majority of researchers! You’re not disagreeing with me alone, and I’m not biased–I’m right in line with the conclusions of all these sources! You’re just deluding yourself and taking a contrary minority position with very, very little evidence or logic to back you up.

The kinds of organic farming that were mentioned in the studies you linked were all different, some of them claimed to use 50% less fertilizer than conventional techniques. That kind of organic farming is just as unsustainable as the conventional because of dependence on fossil fuels.

Wrong. “Fertilizer” in organic farming largely consists of remnant plant material and animal wastes. It is supplemented by leguminous crop rotation and can be added to with compost or ash. Where did your “50%” even come in? How do you know what “some” consists of and that they were talking about fossil fuel fertilizer.

Again, the “fossil fuel fertilizer” is a falsehood you perpetrate–as if there are no alternatives or as if it was the largest form of use of such fuels. Fertilizer can be produced with any generated form of electricity–including sustainably generated electricity. It can also be produced from wastes. I have explained this before.

Then the one study claimed that where conventional farming doesn’t have enough fertilizer and pesticide a conversion to organic farming would increase yield, but where it does have enough it would decrease yield. They did not provide data about what percentage of conventional farms don’t have enough fertilizer and pesticides. You made assumptions that it was every farm in every place that is not first world nations.

Wrong. I made no such assumption. I made the logical assertion that, since a huge proportion of the world’s population are subsistence farmers, and the majority of cropland under cultivation (and the great majority of potential rain-fed cropland) is in developing countries, that organic farming methods would significantly increase yields in these areas. Further, the majority of studies support this view. The majority of studies show that even in developed countries, most productivity losses are small, if there are any at all, and long term soil health improves and may offset this. Further, this ignores the ability of developed countries to move to hydroponics, which has higher initial capital investment, but much higher productivity with much lower resource use. Studies also explicitly spoke of the great overall productivity gains Africa would have in particular.

Again, the burden of proof to support your death-centered view is on YOU. Show us that, contrary to my evidence and logic, too much of the world’s agriculture is done with full mechanization and based on fossil fuels to benefit from organic farming. Despite the fact that the FAO even mentioned how developed countries (like its France example) were generating far below their optimum yields under currently-implemented technologies.

The only claim about what would happen if the whole world converted to organic farming was that 4 billion could be supported after forests and other habitats for living things other than ourselves were destroyed to be converted to farmland.

Oh? What claim was that? The totally unsupported, off the cuff claim from the “father of the green revolution?”
Well, that flies in the face of the majority of studies and the FAO.

This whole idea that “forests and other habitats for living things other than ourselves” would be “destroyed to be converted to farmland” is highly misleading. The FAO statistics show that, and I discussed it. Only a small amount of increased farmland could yield considerable increased in production, and all “potential rain-fed” farmland would TRIPLE farmland under production. Under ANY measures of sustainable organic farming, that would much more than double current production–much more than is necessary. And it would still leave vast amounts of land unoccupied by man. Remember, already the vast majority of the earth’s land is left out of agriculture or human habitation.

–

The solar/geothermal technologies you are talking about don’t exist in that form today. As they exist today they require fossil fuels.

That’s just false. Completely false. The energy (name removed by moderator)uts to produce and transport these things can be taken from alternative energy sources just as well as from conventional fuels. Energy use is totally indifferent to the source of its generation.

You’re essentially betting that by the time the fossil fuels run out we’ll have developed alternatives that can deliver huge amounts of cheap energy without requiring fossil fuels.

This is a risk, a bet, a hope. Today it is not fact.

False. Look at trends for adoption of alternative, sustainable sources of energy. Match those with trends of available fuels. The ranges are decades for the adoption of sustainable sources, centuries for the depletion of available mined resources (longer, as our use of those mined resources declines). That IS fact.

 

[Arandur]

None of us proposed that governments should force people to have only a certain number of children… We are talking about what would be moral, good, prudent for an individual to decide with respect to their own family.

And you want to say I am talking about unrealistic scenarios? Come on!

1. If population control is the answer and people like you advocate it governments WILL get involved and create perverse and evil situations–and you will be totally complicit, just as those who justify supporting violently anti-life candidates bear the guilt of encouraging the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn babies.
2. I give plenty of evidence and trends showing the a consensus of opinion among groups that study these things, less controversial than global warming and far less so than population control, and you want to say I’m being unrealistic? While you suggest that we should control population to less than current levels by perfect worldwide adoption of Catholic ideals and NFP?

Totally unrealistic and not even worth considering. Why waste your time on such nonsense when it could be much better spent helping to educate, raise awareness, and address the various challenges that we do face in distribution of resources and sustainable technologies, helping us raise the standard of living of everyone we can?

I think that people should consider our future as a species, the well being of people in poorer nations, the survival of non-human life, the quality of life we can expect to have as factors in deciding how many children to have…
The Church never said which reasons are appropriate for the use of NFP and which aren’t. It has been left to the prayerful decision by the couple. I see no reason why the above consideration shouldn’t factor into a couple’s moral decision about the number of children they wish to have.

The Church is very clear that the decision always should be strongly weighted in favor of the gift of life, of welcoming more children. A desire for a certain standard of living (like the Western lifestyle) is barely even to be considered, for it is selfish. Ability to provide for children is a reasonable consideration, but one that should not include high material wealth as a standard of measure. And the Pope has even said that population is more often part of the SOLUTION than the problem, even in poor countries, citing a review of relevant statistics. Where it is a problem is usually where there is strife and ignorance born of governments preying on people or not protecting them from warlords.

 

[fultonfish]

Why waste your time on such nonsense when it could be much better spent helping to educate, raise awareness, and address the various challenges that we do face in distribution of resources and sustainable technologies, helping us raise the standard of living of everyone we can?

.

Absolutely right!

It is pretty obvious that school children are being dumbed down in the sciences.

Some of our “leaders” even openly brag that they are terrible at math and science.

The answer to the challenges is exactly what you wrote: educate, raise awareness and address the challenges.

Science, particularly chemistry and physics and geology, is the path to greater availability of resources and new technologies. Instead our politicians are pushing Marxist redistributionism – spreading out the existing supply of material prosperity … instead of creating more plentiful supplies of energy and creating more wealth.

It’s not LUCK that creates wealth [just another name for property and “stuff” and technology and high living standards]. It is education and hard work and risk taking with investment money and enjoying the fruits of one’s labor.

We need to encourage people to invent new things instead of taking what they have away from them.

The “pie” is not fixed in size. We can increase the size of the pie as we have done in the past. But some people who are unable to personally make a contribution don’t have the vision that it takes to make a contribution and so what they do is try to convince us that increasing the size of the pie is not possible.

Someone once referred to a “zero sum game”. Meaning that the supply of wealth and “stuff” is fixed and that someone can only get something by taking it away from someone else.

But the world is NOT a zero sum game. If you have a pile of sand, you can make smaller sand piles, or you recognize that sand can be mixed with other things and processed and you can use the sand to make cement or you can make glass or you can make computer chips. But if you don’t have the imagination to make computer chips, then for you, redistributing the pile of sand is indeed all that you can do.

 

[Baron_Korf]

“Consider the lilies of the field…”

I doubt we will ever really have a dire shortage of natural resources, what we have now and will continue to have for some time is people who don’t know how to use what we’ve got.

Example, I used to be a dishwasher at a fairly popular mexican restraunt. I threw away, easily, 280 gallons of food on a friday night (7 45G trash cans of varying levels). Primarily consisting of rice and beans. The reason people do that is food stuffs, in particular grains and legumes, are cheap in the US. If things get tight people will conserve more of their food, but for now we are producing way beyond our needs in the first world. This took me a while to get used to since at my house we never threw away food unless it was spoiled, and we boxed everything from restraunts.

The thing is we don’t appreciate what we have. If people understood what a marvel plastic really is, they wouldn’t be so quick to throw it away. And this goes for a lot of things.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

“Consider the lilies of the field…”

I doubt we will ever really have a dire shortage of natural resources, what we have now and will continue to have for some time is people who don’t know how to use what we’ve got.

Example, I used to be a dishwasher at a fairly popular mexican restraunt. I threw away, easily, 280 gallons of food on a friday night (7 45G trash cans of varying levels). Primarily consisting of rice and beans. The reason people do that is food stuffs, in particular grains and legumes, are cheap in the US. If things get tight people will conserve more of their food, but for now we are producing way beyond our needs in the first world. This took me a while to get used to since at my house we never threw away food unless it was spoiled, and we boxed everything from restraunts.

The thing is we don’t appreciate what we have. If people understood what a marvel plastic really is, they wouldn’t be so quick to throw it away. And this goes for a lot of things.

Oh, amen to that.

But the new green marxism isn’t about being grateful for our share in God’s bounty or even about VOLUNTARY conservation of PERSONAL resources.

It always, always leads back to eugenics.

Two children should be limit, says green guru.
women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece
February 1, 2009
Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

 

[Arandur]

From your article, Sailor:

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
…
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Extreme population control advocates like those here who want to actually reduce current population by billions cannot help but promote a drastic version of the population myth that will only aid and abet these vile ideas. The only way to consciously slash the population so drastically is through rejecting God and embracing contraception and murder.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

That was really interesting. I had no idea eating meat and dairy could have such an enviormental impact. I’ll have to try to eat more veggies from now on.

Don’t fall for that rigged test. Wanna bet the lifestyle quiz was programmed by rabid vegans? Much of the cattle raised in the US live off of grain that can’t be eaten or crop byproduct that can’t be consumed by humans. The environmental impact is over exaggerated.

 

[fultonfish]

Case Study #3

One of the weaknesses of the peak oil theory is that some oil when dated shows that it predates the fossils that are generally believed to create so called fossil fuels.

In other words, there is oil that is “old oil” that bubbles up from very deep down in the planet Earth. It comes up from below the “traditional” oil.

If that is true, that there is another source of oil, not just from fossils but from the core of the earth, then there is absolutely no shortage of oil.

 

[dranzal]

Oh, dear. I’m only at six…

I doubt even the Duggars could populate more than one planet…

(just thought a little levity would be fun)

 

[fultonfish]

Don’t fall for that rigged test. Wanna bet the lifestyle quiz was programmed by rabid vegans? Much of the cattle raised in the US live off of grain that can’t be eaten or crop byproduct that can’t be consumed by humans. The environmental impact is over exaggerated.

Cattle have more stomachs than humans. So they can digest lots of grass and veggies.

And then we eat and digest the cattle. We have only one stomach and we are ideally designed to eat meat. Humans are a very efficient design. Only one stomach.

 

[Magickman]

We have just the one planet, to provide for our human needs. As responsible stewards of the earth and its resources, it is incumbant upon us to maintain a balance between resources and consumption.

Not only the needs of the current population must be provided for, but also those of unborn generations. If populations grow too large, it will be very difficult to adequately supply the necessities of life for everyone.

Excessive population growth will be damaging to the environment, that must provide for those human needs.

With only one planet to work with, we have to carefully manage it.

 

[fultonfish]

Actually, the Earth has plenty of resources.

Every single time that some group or other says we are running out of resources, they turn out to be totally and completely wrong.

The “sky is falling” “we are running out of resources” argument is false and alarmism. Totally unnecessary.

Pollution has decreased since 1967.

New energy sources have been found to be increasingly available.

Food production has increased.

We have so much water that we have floods. All we need to do is capture that flood water and use it for drinking and irrigation. We have so much water that we dump perfectly good water into the ocean.

No need to “cherry pick” data to make a point that is false.

Good stewardship, yes.

Alarmism, no.

 

[Marycruz]

Don’t fall for that rigged test. Wanna bet the lifestyle quiz was programmed by rabid vegans? Much of the cattle raised in the US live off of grain that can’t be eaten or crop byproduct that can’t be consumed by humans. The environmental impact is over exaggerated.

That means that you’re using land that could be used to grow food for humans to grow food for cattle, and since they’re higher on the energy flow pyramid it means less food for humans in the end (the cattle doesn’t compensate for the loss of land where food for humans could be grown). By the way I’m not a rabid vegan, just an informed omnivore.