Overpopulation topic for Liberalsaved

[MonicaC]

I wanted to start a new thread about the lie of overpopulation.

Liberalsaved stated the following

Originally Posted by Liberalsaved forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
No…over-crowding is a serious issue leading to starvation and poverty that can be cured with education about options for families, primarily in third-world countries populated by people who cannot afford proper schooling. A responsibility to life includes making sure there’s enough space and resources to go around, and that families aren’t having multiple children they cannot take care of.

*If I am insane for thinking it prudent to plan to have a number of children that a family and the resources they have to work with can reasonably support…then I better check myself into the funny farm now. *

But of course, that’s not what you got from my post. Please, re-read, and tell me in exactly what point I advocated abortion as a means of population control.

I found this article on the subject that I think speaks volums.

(sorry it so long)

Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels

By Paul Nowak
LifeNews.com Staff Writer
March 24, 2004

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A report released Monday by the Census Bureau shows that world population growth is slowing to dangerous levels.

In its report, “Global Population Profile: 2002,” the Census Bureau notes that the 74 million people added to the world’s population in 2002 were significantly fewer than the high of 87 million people added in 1989-1990. The growth rate was a meager 1.2 percent, down from the high of 2.2 percent in 1963-64.

“Census Bureau projections show this slow-down in population growth continuing into the foreseeable future,” states the Bureau’s brief on the findings. “Census Bureau projections suggest that the level of fertility for the world as a whole will drop below replacement level before 2050.”

The Bureau attributes the dropping growth rate to two major phenomena – the AIDS epidemic and declining fertility rates, including increased contraceptive use. “In 1990 the world’s women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes,” says the Census Bureau. “By 2002 the average was 2.6 – less than one-half of a child more than the level needed to assure the replacement of the population.”

“It’s time for the population control movement to call off the dogs,” responded Steven Mosher, president of Population Research Institute (PRI). “The population explosion it predicted never happened, and the anti-natalists should pack up their tents and go home.” “As birth rates fall into the cellar, it’s time for the U.S. government to stop spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year on programs designed to lower the number of babies born even further,” said Mosher.

The rest can be read at this website
abortiontv.com/Lies%20&%20Myths/OverpopulationLie.htm

scroll down to
Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels. Although I think all of the page is good to read on this subject.

God Bless,

Monica

 

[estesbob]

I wanted to start a new thread about the lie of overpopulation.

Generally when population control organizations talk about the problem of overpopulation they are really talking about eugenics. They dont want to stop population growth as much as they want to stop the birth of black , brown and yellow babies in Third world countries.

To accomplish this our Church must be attacked as we teach not only against contraception but also that all men have equal digninty and have the same right to life AND right to be born as do those who inhabit wealthier countries.

I

 

[MonicaC]

Generally when population control organizations talk about the problem of overpopulation they are really talking about eugenics. They dont want to stop population growth as much as they want to stop the birth of black , brown and yellow babies in Third world countries.

To accomplish this our Church must be attacked as we teach not only against contraception but also that all men have equal digninty and have the same right to life AND right to be born as do those who inhabit wealthier countries.

I

I agree totally. I was however hoping that Liberalsaved would make a comment about the lie of overpopulation, since she seems that overpopulation is a good reason to kill those who most innocent.

God Bless,

Monica

 

[Vanny]

Generally when population control organizations talk about the problem of overpopulation they are really talking about eugenics. They dont want to stop population growth as much as they want to stop the birth of black , brown and yellow babies in Third world countries.

To accomplish this our Church must be attacked as we teach not only against contraception but also that all men have equal digninty and have the same right to life AND right to be born as do those who inhabit wealthier countries.

I

Exactly, Exactly. And there are no population control organizations that do NOT support abortion- they all do- they all want universal right to abortion on demand, hence trying to push that through the U.N.

 

[Contarini]

I wanted to start a new thread about the lie of overpopulation.

Liberalsaved stated the following

I found this article on the subject that I think speaks volums.

(sorry it so long)

The rest can be read at this website
abortiontv.com/Lies%20&%20Myths/OverpopulationLie.htm

scroll down to
Census Bureau: World Population Slowing to Dangerous Levels. Although I think all of the page is good to read on this subject.

God Bless,

Monica

You cited no evidence that this slowdown is “dangerous” or that the Census Bureau used this word. You cited a propaganda machine trying to take these findings to prove their ideological point.

All it takes is simple math to see that high fertility with low mortality will lead to overpopulation eventually. The “slowdown” is not some inevitable thing that proves the anti-overpopulation folks wrong. Your source says that it’s due to two factors: the AIDS epidemic (hardly something to be celebrated) and increasing use of contraception (which you oppose).

In other words, if it were up to any of us (I hope) one of these factors would not exist, and if it were up to you the other wouldn’t exist at all. So this slowdown doesn’t support your view of population at all. If things were as you would have them, this wouldn’t be happening and the predictions of the overpopulation folks would be coming true.

All that the slowdown proves is that the population-explosion folks were more effective than they expected (and that modern technology hasn’t got all epidemics beat just yet–I doubt it ever will). It tells us nothing about what a virtuous course of action would involve.

Edwin

 

[renee1258]

I guess I could find cites, but I can’t help but make the general comment that those withouth children or have one or two children seem to consume more material good and resources then those who do not. 40 years ago people were content living in semi-urban areas in a 1500 sq ft home on .2 of an acre and having four or five kids. Now to many that seems crowded and developments of 4000 sq ft homes on two acres is that only satisfactory option and those who do not have children are not conserving, but instead taking an extra revenue or source for personal satisfaction. Screw the rest of the world resources, I want my 100 inch panel TV and my Hummer.

 

[bones_IV]

Generally when population control organizations talk about the problem of overpopulation they are really talking about eugenics. They dont want to stop population growth as much as they want to stop the birth of black , brown and yellow babies in Third world countries.

To accomplish this our Church must be attacked as we teach not only against contraception but also that all men have equal digninty and have the same right to life AND right to be born as do those who inhabit wealthier countries.

I

The Church is the only institution that has always contradicted the world and has never obeyed it.

 

[tjm8]

I guess I could find cites, but I can’t help but make the general comment that those withouth children or have one or two children seem to consume more material good and resources then those who do not. 40 years ago people were content living in semi-urban areas in a 1500 sq ft home on .2 of an acre and having four or five kids. Now to many that seems crowded and developments of 4000 sq ft homes on two acres is that only satisfactory option and those who do not have children are not conserving, but instead taking an extra revenue or source for personal satisfaction. Screw the rest of the world resources, I want my 100 inch panel TV and my Hummer.

Are you trying to tell me that a family of four consumes more resources and goods than a family of six or seven?? You might want to rethink that! As for the 4000sq ft home on two acres, if a couple can afford it and not cheat their children, why not? If they want five children sure their consumption per child will have to be a lot less than if they have two. They also will probably have to limit themselves to a 2500sq. ft. home and a Toyota camery. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone just has to decide what they really want out of their lives.

 

[renee1258]

Are you trying to tell me that a family of four consumes more resources and goods than a family of six or seven?? You might want to rethink that! As for the 4000sq ft home on two acres, if a couple can afford it and not cheat their children, why not? If they want five children sure their consumption per child will have to be a lot less than if they have two. They also will probably have to limit themselves to a 2500sq. ft. home and a Toyota camery. There is nothing wrong with that. Everyone just has to decide what they really want out of their lives.

I’m only suggesting that from my own observations. I have three children, do not allow us to get big ticket items that encourage more waste. We can’t afford take out or going out to eay all things the encourage more consumptions, as for the larger home and acreage, they are using up more envrioment, and engaging in “sprawl” in which the have farther commutes using up more energy. Many people without children or few have more TVs in their homes then people. When I was single or without children I would buy clothes every season, and toss out now my clothes last a good six years, and with multiple children we use hand me downs.

I have no problem with people and their choices, but the “overpopulation” advocates are saying we use up too many resources. When in reality I think the single person uses up the most energy and space, since there is no combining of any resource,

 

[Rosalinda]

Monica, I found this article at Mercator Net entitled, “What population explosion, asks Uganda’s President”.

…Studies across Africa have shown that the desire for large families remains powerful, the report says. Thank God for that. One of the great joys of Africa is its children, everywhere. Not just because they are seen as a sign of security, not only for fear of infant mortality, as this report admits, but because a child is a blessing of God. Why do these reports always omit this essential truth?..

How many in the Western world have forgotten children are a blessing from God. In America it seems we only talk about children as problems; in Africa, they are described as a great joy. The perspective of this article is refreshing because it is written by a Kenyan.:tiphat:

mercatornet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361

 

[PLAL]

Can The Entire World Population Fit Within The Boundries of Texas?

LEGEND

1 Acre = 43,560 Square Feet

1 Square Mile = 640 Acres or 27,878,400 Square Feet (640 x 43,560)

---

World Population = 6,276,000,000 people

State of Texas = 268,601 Square Miles or 171,904,640 Acres (268,601 x 640) or 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet (268,601 x 640 x 43,560)

---

Average Size 2-Story Home with 3-4 Bedrooms = 1,500 to 2,400 Square Feet (Thus 750 - 1,200 Square Feet is Needed on the Ground Floor).

This home would fit 5-6 people per house comfortably!

Therefore 150-240 (750 to 1,200/ 5 people per household) Square Feet of Ground Space Per Person is needed to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas.

---

State of Texas = 7,488,166,118,400 Square Feet/ 6,276,000,000 people in the world = 1,193 Square Feet Per Person is available for the entire world’s population to live in the state of Texas.

As noted above only 150-240 Square Feet of Ground Space is needed per person to fit 5-6 people comfortably in a 2-story home in the state of Texas!!!

---

You can double check my math!

---

OverPopulation Myth

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58961

 

[tjm8]

I think you missed something. The overpopulation advocates concern is valid if you allow that each child hopefully becomes an adult in twenty years. Some time in the following ten years chances are some if not all will have their own children who again will become adults in another 20 years. Fifty to 60 years after you had your first, there may be five more adults and twenty five more teens. Now I know I don’t have all the arithmetic correct and I haven’t allowed that your five kids will combine with five other kids etc, but I’m sure you see the five kids grows the population a lot faster then two kids. I believe I read that 1.6 children per couple is the number that keeps the population growth at about zero.

I make no comment on your 3 kids. That is your choice. I have two kids and I decided that was enough. My wife was really unhappy with me until our oldest became a teen. Then she actually thanked me for making a good decision. Okay, maybe I have sinned. I’m sure that the Church says I have sinned. But I’m real happy with my decision.

 

[tjm8]

You could make each building ten stories high and maybe have room for a play ground. I tell you what, you get started building a community on that scale and we’ll see how many units you can sell. A fool and his money soon part!!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Two points:

1. Populations are more delicate than many think. Fifty years of no births and there would be no human race at all. Not like, of course, but Europe is looking at catastrophic population collapse in just a few years. It doesn’t take all that much to do it.
2. Overpopulation is a relative thing; mainly relative to technology. When white men first came to the U.S., it supported only about 1 million people, largely hunter-gatherers. Constant wars between them suggest that even that number was a burden on resources, considering the technology employed. European farming methods allowed for a much larger population. The invention of the iron turning plow allowed for more; the prairie disc for more; the tractor for more, and so on. Industrial processes, combined with improved farming methods allowed for more people to be fed, clothed, housed. If we now used 18th century methods, yes, the U.S. would be overpopulated. But we don’t. From where I live, I can drive 200 miles in any direction, and most of what I pass through will be underutilized, very thinly populated country. Say what you will about “factory farming”, but it certainly increases the food supply dramatically, and has caused that land underutilization. Vast tracts that were once farmed are no longer farmed. As methods advance, the resources available are actually outstripping the need, not the other way around. Poor governance and primitiveness in some parts of the world cause a “relative overpopulation” that does not need to exist.

Departing just a bit from the topic, I wish someone with expertise and an open mind would study the dynamics of large families. Since families are now at or below replacement level almost everywhere (certainly in the U.S. and Europe) I sometimes wonder whether that fact results in an overemphasis on a kind of “material specialness” of each child. If a family has, say, only one boy, is there going to be a kind of unspoken discouragement for that boy’s becoming a priest? Is that boy going to have it in his mind that he “owes” it to his predecessors to have a family and a secular career? Is the girl going to feel a certain obligation to produce grandchildren, when, without that sense of obligation, she might well feel free to join a convent? Is the family going to be perhaps excessively anxious that its one or two children always have the “best”; be the “best”? If a child really wants to be, e.g., a machine mechanic, is he/she going to be forced to go to college in order to be a white-collar-something-or-other? If the family had, say, six children, would the budding machine mechanic perhaps be generously allowed to pursue that, since others would likely chase the college degree?

I am not an anthropologist, so I don’t know. But it really does seem that family limitation has paralleled a kind of material desperation in society, and I can’t help wondering if the former has largely been the cause of the latter. People limit their families because of a belief that they can only provide “the best” for one or two. But is that impulse really part of a vicious cycle that can only be broken by people having larger families and trusting to…oh…Providence?

 

[MJE]

Our daughter gave a college professor the formula PLAL offered (Texas)and the prof., w/ a bit of anger in her voice, said it was not true and abruptly ended the discussion. Maybe she went home and did the math. Maybe some of the students did the math.

 

[gilliam]

Two points:

1. Populations are more delicate than many think. Fifty years of no births and there would be no human race at all. Not like, of course, but Europe is looking at catastrophic population collapse in just a few years. It doesn’t take all that much to do it.

It might be a problem with non-Muslim populations in Europe, but Muslim populations are growing rapidly in Europe.

…Departing just a bit from the topic, I wish someone with expertise and an open mind would study the dynamics of large families. Since families are now at or below replacement level almost everywhere (certainly in the U.S. and Europe)

This is not true for the US. The US fertility rate is 2.09 children born/woman (2006 est.) Population growth rate is 0.91% (2006 est.)

 

[tequilamac]

I agree totally. I was however hoping that Liberalsaved would make a comment about the lie of overpopulation, since she seems that overpopulation is a good reason to kill those who most innocent.

God Bless,

Monica

Did you know detraction is a sin? I am trying hard to find the spot here where liberalsaved believes overpopulation is a good reason to kill those who are most innocent. Perhaps you could point me to the post where liberalsaved said that. And if you can’t, perhaps you could apologise for making slurs on liberalsaved’s character. Because you know what? It gets real tiresome.

 

[Liberalsaved]

I agree totally. I was however hoping that Liberalsaved would make a comment about the lie of overpopulation, since she seems that overpopulation is a good reason to kill those who most innocent.

God Bless,

Monica

A: I am a male

B. I explicitly denied in the thread this came from that I supported abortion as a means of population control. It was actually you who repeatedly stated that I said as much, apparently deeper in my mind than I myself am.

That means you either A: didn’t read everything I wrote or B: Did read it, and chose to deliberately distort my views. I’ll trust the sense of honor I hope you have to now tell me honestly which one is the case.

Edit: to clarify, I supported as a solution the providing of education about things such as how to have a number of chilren you can support and related issues to women in cultures where it is not commonly taught and who cannot afford it. To that I also add the providing of jobs that a parent can support a small family on without needing children to work would also help.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Exactly, Exactly. And there are no population control organizations that do NOT support abortion- they all do- they all want universal right to abortion on demand, hence trying to push that through the U.N.

They do? Well, I can solve my contribution to that sort of thing easily enough.

I’ll go withdraw my membership in all such organizations now.

I’m looking through my records. I haven’t found any such memberships so far.

Still looking…

 

[Liberalsaved]

I guess I could find cites, but I can’t help but make the general comment that those withouth children or have one or two children seem to consume more material good and resources then those who do not. 40 years ago people were content living in semi-urban areas in a 1500 sq ft home on .2 of an acre and having four or five kids. Now to many that seems crowded and developments of 4000 sq ft homes on two acres is that only satisfactory option and those who do not have children are not conserving, but instead taking an extra revenue or source for personal satisfaction. Screw the rest of the world resources, I want my 100 inch panel TV and my Hummer.

Excellent.

I have always been opposed to taking up more resources than you need. I know some people who farm food on their extra acres, or some who make actual use of it in other ways, but the majority just look at it outside their windows. I’m a nature lover, so buying a nice, quiet plot of land so you can have a place to relax is perfectly logical to me. But when you do things like get mad if kids cross your land, or use that land solely to increase the surface beauty of your own home, it seems selfish and shallow to me.
Ideally, if you have a large plot of land, you should use at least a portion of it for something beneficial to someone besides yourself. Use a small piece of it to grow organic veggies/fruit, and give it to homeless shelters. If you live in the country, build a small playground or maybe a small basketball court for neighborhood kids, since they can’t go to the city/town on their own.
The issue isn’t owning large pieces of land, it’s insisting on not sharing the wealth.

Houses ten times larger than needed are another story. I know people who use 1/3 of their house on anything resembling a regular basis. I know people who use entire rooms almost solely for decoration. If you build rooms onto your house that do not serve a purpose (things like a workout room and guest rooms can be considered to serve a purpose), you’re simply being wasteful.