Overpopulation

[edgarallanpo]

Hello all,
I have read the posts on overpopulation on this and several other Catholic apologetic forums. I’m sorry for starting another post, but I haven’t found answers that make sense to me, and I’d welcome any help. I am Catholic, and strive to be obedient to the Church, I don’t see consistency here, and I want to understand more fully the teachings about openness to life.

First of all, I understand that overpopulation defined as earth’s human population surpassing the holding capacity of the world in terms of food, water, land availability, etc. is not likely going to be an issue now, or perhaps ever in our fallen world. I realize that population predictions are pointing toward a, more or less, plateau in the future, and that we are even having trouble in ‘developed’ nations with our replacement rates. The best arguments I’ve heard against the ‘overpopulation myth’ rely on a great deal of people not upholding Catholic morality though. Shouldn’t Catholic teaching be internally coherent and sustainable for everyone in the world to follow?

Ok, so I can’t understand what the check on population is in the Catholic church. Could the majority of people not be called to marriage? Or would teaching the world effective NFP be the future of population control in a Catholic world? Because there is a holding capacity for the world, it is ever increasing, but eventually we would reach it. Be it 20 billion or 200 billion, there is an absolute holding capacity.

Secondly, when we talk about overpopulation, we speak in terms of holding capacity of humans. But at what point are we not being good stewards of the earth? If humans are the apex of creation, the vastly the most valuable part of creation, it justifies destroying ecosystems and thereby endangering and making extinct other animals to make room for man, correct? How far would this logic go? Would it be better to clear the earth for man, cryogenically preserving earths biodiversity, and keeping a few animals in zoos, but only until feeding became second priority to feeding more humans? When the earth is an expanse of skyscraper filled to the brim with the apex of creation, when we are unable to outstretch arms without hitting one another, are we satisfied that so much beauty has been created?

A related questions is: are most people in the Catholic 2nd and 3rd world called to celibacy? Because in being obedient to the church right now they are bringing lives into the world that they cannot care for, and don’t have education on NFP methods, so they should not be married?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t see consistency here,

There’s not going to be consistency on here ever. There’s too many diverse opinions and a lot of questions should actually be directed to priests, confessors, apologists or moralists.

I think I can help you here though.

First of all, I understand that overpopulation defined as earth’s human population surpassing the holding capacity of the world in terms of food, water, land availability, etc. is not likely going to be an issue now, or perhaps ever in our fallen world.

Well, the thing to remember is that technology improves. Our society has gotten more vertical with big buildings, crop genetics, crop rotation and fertilizer and pesticides have enabled us to increase yields per area.

Land is now regulated in many places through zoning.

So humans are adapting to the situation.

I realize that population predictions are pointing toward a, more or less, plateau in the future,

Probably, but that’s even more reason for Catholics to strive for big families.

and that we are even having trouble in ‘developed’ nations with our replacement rates.

The real issue is that entitlement mentality as well.

The best arguments I’ve heard against the ‘overpopulation myth’ rely on a great deal of people not upholding Catholic morality though. Shouldn’t Catholic teaching be internally coherent and sustainable for everyone in the world to follow?

If you’re talking about birth control, that would be correct. The idea that this is a solution is based on linear, almost Malthusian notions. Most progressive and anti-Catholics positions stem from one-dimensional analysis (ie contraception means less people, less stress on resources and is therefore good) which is why we need a more holistic perspective.

Catholicism is based on natural law and policies such as contraception, abortion and feminism are leading to aging societies that rely on immigrants who in many cases couldn’t care less about Catholics, freedom or republics.

Ok, so I can’t understand what the check on population is in the Catholic church. Could the majority of people not be called to marriage?

I have a feeling that not everyone is properly discerning their vocation, but most people are clearly called to marriage.

Or would teaching the world effective NFP be the future of population control in a Catholic world?

I wouldn’t call it population control. Population control tends to refer to government polices, and misguided ones at that.

NFP allows Catholics to manage their family sizes during their marriage; it’s not meant necessarily to limit children from a policy perspective but so families can manage their kids and plan accordingly.

Because there is a holding capacity for the world, it is ever increasing, but eventually we would reach it. Be it 20 billion or 200 billion, there is an absolute holding capacity.

Well, I suppose there is, but eventually even man will succumb to the whims of nature. We won’t be reaching those numbers anytime soon, I promise you that.

I’ve studied this to some extent, and the technology is evolving along population growth, and I have solid confidence it will continue to go this way.

Secondly, when we talk about overpopulation, we speak in terms of holding capacity of humans. But at what point are we not being good stewards of the earth?

It really depends. Morally speaking, harming the environment is a sin when the intention is there and large amounts of pollution are unmitigated.

It’s important for people to manage their own property. If that happened, things would improve greatly.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If humans are the apex of creation, the vastly the most valuable part of creation, it justifies destroying ecosystems and thereby endangering and making extinct other animals to make room for man, correct?

That’s a myth. Today we have the concept of sustainability. Also, capitalist polices that develop stakeholders in these ecosystems helps the balance.

For instance, logging companies will plant trees, because they know they’ll need them again. In fact, I think there are now more trees in the USA that at any other time in the nation’s history.

There’s too much false, alarmist information out there that you are getting yourself caught up in.

How far would this logic go?

What you are describing to me is not logic. It’s some odd alarmist vision of development gone wild. That isn’t going to happen.

Would it be better to clear the earth for man, cryogenically preserving earths biodiversity, and keeping a few animals in zoos, but only until feeding became second priority to feeding more humans?

I’m sure that cryogenic freezing would work and there is more than enough on this planet to feed everyone.

When the earth is an expanse of skyscraper filled to the brim with the apex of creation, when we are unable to outstretch arms without hitting one another, are we satisfied that so much beauty has been created?

Again, my friend, this is too linear. I can’t explain this easily, but there’s too many feedback loops here.

For starters, no one would do this because of economics. If too much land became skyscrapers, the value of that land would go down because of supply.

As far as that many people, well, the planet’s growth rate is slowing most all over. And as cold as this sounds, just because people in Niger or Afghanistan are breeding, doesn’t mean that other countries will take in everyone for the sake of taking them in. So, the political boundary restriction will result in people dying from lack of resources LONG before we have no more space, which BTW would take quadrillions of people.

A related questions is: are most people in the Catholic 2nd and 3rd world called to celibacy?

No. The problems in those places are the result of bad policies and governance, not too many people.

Listen, there would still be poor people even if the world population was a fraction of what it was.

Because in being obedient to the church right now they are bringing lives into the world that they cannot care for,

Well, they might see it differently. Part of the problem is this mentality that “I shouldn’t have kids if I can’t fund their college, get them their own car, laptop ect.”

and don’t have education on NFP methods, so they should not be married?

I would say that shouldn’t be an impediment. NFP is understandably required in some First World areas, but I think that’s more about weaning people off of the idea that they need contraception.

Overall, it’s important to understand that there are so many** feedback loops in nature** and the environment that we’re not going to run out of space so dramatically.

Be careful of these linear arguments, too. The universe is much too complex for that.

 

[edgarallanpo]

Thank you for your reply SuperLuigi,

Well, the thing to remember is that technology improves. Our society has gotten more vertical with big buildings, crop genetics, crop rotation and fertilizer and pesticides have enabled us to increase yields per area.

Even vertical agriculture using free energy reaches resource limitations. This is sort of a rabbit hole that I don’t want to go down, although it is my field (I was an AgSci major) and we can talk more about it. But we agree that there is a holding capacity. I don’t claim even in a Catholic world we would reach it very soon - only that eventually we would.

If you’re talking about birth control, that would be correct. The idea that this is a solution is based on linear, almost Malthusian notions. Most progressive and anti-Catholics positions stem from one-dimensional analysis (ie contraception means less people, less stress on resources and is therefore good) which is why we need a more holistic perspective.

I’m not talking about birth control per se, modern NFP methods can be even more successful in preventing pregnancy vs. artificial contraception. The heart of my concern is the fallout from putting human life above all other life, that it’s a sin to avoid pregnancy in marriage even using NFP, except for grave reasons.

I wouldn’t call it population control. Population control tends to refer to government polices, and misguided ones at that.

It’s semantics. Call it what you’d like, but you agreed that there is a holding capacity for the world, so in a Catholic world something needs to keep population from eventually reaching that point.

**That’s a myth. Today we have the concept of sustainability. Also, capitalist polices that develop stakeholders in these ecosystems helps the balance.

For instance, logging companies will plant trees, because they know they’ll need them again. In fact, I think there are now more trees in the USA that at any other time in the nation’s history.

There’s too much false, alarmist information out there that you are getting yourself caught up in.**

Planting a lot of trees isn’t necessarily good forest management. There is a way to log in a sustainable way, but you’re mistaken if you think that we haven’t irreversibly destroyed ecosystems.

**Quote:
How far would this logic go?
What you are describing to me is not logic. It’s some odd alarmist vision of development gone wild. That isn’t going to happen. **

Tell me why not, in a theoretical Catholic world? Saying it’s alarmist doesn’t make it true or untrue.

**Quote:
When the earth is an expanse of skyscraper filled to the brim with the apex of creation, when we are unable to outstretch arms without hitting one another, are we satisfied that so much beauty has been created?
Again, my friend, this is too linear. I can’t explain this easily, but there’s too many feedback loops here. **

Feedback loops which involve how populations currently behave? Because those are based on a mostly non Catholic population. Or did you mean other feedback loops?

**Quote:
A related questions is: are most people in the Catholic 2nd and 3rd world called to celibacy?
No. The problems in those places are the result of bad policies and governance, not too many people.

Listen, there would still be poor people even if the world population was a fraction of what it was. **

My question isn’t about poverty in theory, it’s concerning those born into poverty, do you think they are called to celibacy?

**Quote:
Because in being obedient to the church right now they are bringing lives into the world that they cannot care for,
Well, they might see it differently. Part of the problem is this mentality that “I shouldn’t have kids if I can’t fund their college, get them their own car, laptop ect.” **

I was thinking places like Guatemala. I’m not talking about the first world and what people think ‘necessary’ for their children. But very true in those cases.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I have heard from visitors to India that there are people, everywhere.
Presumably this is what would happen in your scenario. Bare in mind that people have been in India for an awful long time now…

 

[Back2Church]

We’re not overpopulated. There’s plenty enough in this world for everyone. The problem is that this “plenty enough” is not distributed equally or effectively. I don’t believe in government mandated socialism, though. The desire and followthrough of distributing food and resources equally should be happening at the individual level. We should want to fix the world of our own free will and out of our love of God and all his creation.

Unfortunately that’s not the case. Those with excess continue to live in excess, and those in poverty continue to live in poverty. I readily admit I’m part of the problem.

Show me a world where all the food and resources are actually distrubuted equally. Would the case for the dangers of overpopulation still hold?

 

[weller2]

First of all, I understand that overpopulation defined as earth’s human population surpassing the holding capacity of the world in terms of food, water, land availability, etc. is not likely going to be an issue now, or perhaps ever in our fallen world. I realize that population predictions are pointing toward a, more or less, plateau in the future, and that we are even having trouble in ‘developed’ nations with our replacement rates.

Overpopulation is not about the number of people.

Overpopulation is about resource use by people – which is a product of population and HDI, not the population itself. To quote myself from another thread:

The main difference between an inhabitant of India and an inhabitant of the United States is the amount of resources that each of them has available – everything else boils down to that. Resources, in turn, are land. There’s land for food production, land for mining coal, land for dumping waste on so on. Mind that land used by a given coutry does not necessarily have to be in that country, due to global trade. If the UK imports food, for example, then it is using land abroad to feed itself.

…]

Earth can sure accommodate:

• 21 billion people if they live at Bangladeshi levels on average (0.6 gha per capita)
• 15 billion people if they live at Indian levels on average (0.9 gha per capita)
• 10 billion people if they live at Phillipine levels on average (1.3 gha per capita)

But, it can accommocate only:

• 2.7 billion people if they live at German levels on average (5 gha per capita)
• 1.7 billion people if they live with an economy like the US has (8 gha per capita)

We ARE going to have a major environmental crisis even if world population stopped increasing today – the Third World is entering an era of fast growth, and soon their apetite for resources will exceed what is available.

 

[pensmama87]

CAFers are a small subset of Catholics and the population at large, of course, but consider: there are many married folks here who act completely in line with Church teaching on matters sexual and do not have 20 kids - for a variety of reasons: natural temporary infertility after childbirth, the use of NFP, infertility (primary or secondary), finding a spouse late in life, conversion/reversion after sterilization or contraceptive use, etc. Everyone living in accordance with Church teaching does not mean overrunning the planet instantaneously. (For one thing, we’ve still got sin here, and two - think of all the vocations we might have! )

Say my husband and I have six children before I reach menopause (a fair estimate.) Now, I don’t know what my children will do, but perhaps one of my sons discerns a vocation to the priesthood (or to the religious life, or a daughter does). Two marry young, but one struggles with infertility for many years. Another does not find a spouse until well into adulthood, so doesn’t have as many years left to have children. Perhaps my other two children remain single - because of the necessities of career or just not finding anyone, or even that they experience same sex attraction. Regardless of what happens, my having hypothetically six children does not mean I have 36 biological grandchildren (maybe one of my children will be called to foster or adopt a child). There are a lot of variables there. And even though I’m still in my 20s and healthy, who knows what could happen to me or my husband during the rest of our fertile years. We might have to avoid having future children, or we become physically unable to have more.

The thing about TFR is that it’s an average across populations. Not every woman is going to have two children, who then have two children, and so on. AFAIK, society that advances economically, throughout history, has experienced lower birth rates as health care and availability of resources improves…especially if women become more educated (delays the start of childbearing years, for one thing.) This has been going on long before contraceptive use became widespread (or reliable.)

But anyway, eyes on your own work, IMO.

 

[St_Francis]

When people talk about some far-off time in the future and the problems that might exist then due to what we are doing now… we do not take into account that there will be all sorts of tech advances between now and then.

Look just at computers… by then they may be recycling all our old computers to make little computers with fold-out screens–I certainly would not have thought when I bought my first computer built to run on floppy discs (tho i splurged and bought a separate hard disc drive) that I would be carrying in my pocket something with a gazillion times the power and memory!

So at that future time, who knows? Maybe we’ll have colonized our solar system and be moving on to others! Carrying our iPodlets on rings on our fingers!

But to be more serious, If all the world were Catholic and many were having lots of children, there would be more people to have vocations involving celibacy. Now parents put pressure on their 2.1 children to marry and have children–when you have 6 children, you don’t worry as much about that.

So my theory is that increased Catholicism is the key to our successful future

 

[Cricket2]

This may be to simple but I truly believe that God will and does provide for all. This is part of our Faith. NFP is a good and acceptable way to control the number of children a couple may have and it is certainly a good thing to practice.

I think we have become to reliant on studies, technology and “experts” telling what will be because of what conditions, and because of that we are losing touch with the realities of God. This applies to population theories as much as anything. I am not saying that science does not have its place, but it sure tends to be used as a form of gloom and doom prophesy.

Certainly we are called to be good stewards of this earth. Part of that has to include not being selfish, hoarding foods and other goods. Hoarding, the creation of corporate farms, destruction of resources to put in massive shopping centers, or industrial complexes all seem to be done with little regard to outcome. Personally I believe that corporate farms will be the greatest and actually are, the greatest source of hunger and need in the world. Why? Because he who owns the land owns the people and can control quantity and cost of the foods grown. Also, there is much greater possibility of total crop failure due to a single blight or disease.

I heard about a year ago or less that China has actually reached a negative population growth. She has in effect committed her own genocide with her one child only policy. The practice has left far more men of marriageable age for the number of women due to their practice of selecting for boys. In effect they have no ability to sustain the older population as it increases, or their infrastructure. The country is destined to fail hard by its own design. If it can happen to China it can happen anywhere.

As Christians we should waste nothing, recycle as much as possible, share what we have and trust in God more than science, technology or experts. Easy to say but maybe not so easy to do.

God will and does sustain us.

 

[St_Francis]

There’s not going to be consistency on here ever. There’s too many diverse opinions and a lot of questions should actually be directed to priests, confessors, apologists or moralists.

I think I can help you here though.

Well, the thing to remember is that technology improves. Our society has gotten more vertical with big buildings, crop genetics, crop rotation and fertilizer and pesticides have enabled us to increase yields per area.

Land is now regulated in many places through zoning.

So humans are adapting to the situation.

Probably, but that’s even more reason for Catholics to strive for big families.

The real issue is that entitlement mentality as well.

If you’re talking about birth control, that would be correct. The idea that this is a solution is based on linear, almost Malthusian notions. Most progressive and anti-Catholics positions stem from one-dimensional analysis (ie contraception means less people, less stress on resources and is therefore good) which is why we need a more holistic perspective.

Catholicism is based on natural law and policies such as contraception, abortion and feminism are leading to aging societies that rely on immigrants who in many cases couldn’t care less about Catholics, freedom or republics.

I have a feeling that not everyone is properly discerning their vocation, but most people are clearly called to marriage.

I wouldn’t call it population control. Population control tends to refer to government polices, and misguided ones at that.

NFP allows Catholics to manage their family sizes during their marriage; it’s not meant necessarily to limit children from a policy perspective but so families can manage their kids and plan accordingly.

I just want to point out this is not actually what NFP is all about. We are supposed to use it only for *grave *reasons. This may be what you meant, but it didn’t really come through for me when I read your comment.

Well, I suppose there is, but eventually even man will succumb to the whims of nature. We won’t be reaching those numbers anytime soon, I promise you that.

I’ve studied this to some extent, and the technology is evolving along population growth, and I have solid confidence it will continue to go this way.

It really depends. Morally speaking, harming the environment is a sin when the intention is there and large amounts of pollution are unmitigated.

It’s important for people to manage their own property. If that happened, things would improve greatly.

 

[StMikhael]

We ARE going to have a major environmental crisis even if world population stopped increasing today – the Third World is entering an era of fast growth, and soon their apetite for resources will exceed what is available.

Yes, but the question, I believe is, how does this pertain to God?

• Did He design a self destructing erroneous mechanism?
• Does His design include our own self-destruction with time in terms of overpopulation?
• Does He have something else in store for us of what we do not yet know (i.e. other planets to inhabit)?

 

[vz71]

Yes, but the question, I believe is, how does this pertain to God?

• Did He design a self destructing erroneous mechanism?
• Does His design include our own self-destruction with time in terms of overpopulation?
• Does He have something else in store for us of what we do not yet know (i.e. other planets to inhabit)?

It is my opinion that God’s design includes man growing ever more clever and efficient with the resources available.

I believe science will advance at a pace that by the time we start to outstrip what the planet can provide we will have other planets to work with.

 

[David011]

I just want to point out this is not actually what NFP is all about. We are supposed to use it only for *grave *reasons. This may be what you meant, but it didn’t really come through for me when I read your comment.

I’d just like to point out that the church teaches that NFP can be used for *just *reasons. And *just * reasons are decided by the couple to be whatever they honestly and prayerfully decide to be *just *.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The thing about the holding capacity is that it increases with time and technology. Now, as you say, there may be a theorhetical upper limit, that we may eventually reach.

But there is no reason to believe that it would be any time in the next several centuries, and there is no way to know what technology will be like when we get there. Maybe we will eventually begin to reach the Earth’s holding capacity, but maybe by then we will have space travel and won’t be limited to the Earth. Or maybe we will be wiped out by some disaster before we become close.

Currently, it’s not an issue. Not even close. We have no way of knowing if it ever will be. So there is no reason to work on it now.

But you are right that should a situation arise where an increase in population would be bad, that Church teaching should be able to be consistent with such a situation. And it is. If there is a grave reason for not having children, then… we shouldn’t have children. But we can’t do bad to accomplish good. So we will have to stick within morally acceptable means, which means abstinence or some NFP like thing (whatever it will have evolved into in however many years that will be).

So yeah. Overpopulation is not an issue. It theorhetically could become so, though there is no particular reason to assume that it will. If it were to become so, then we would have to take morally acceptable action to combat it.

But until such time, simply because there are too many completely unpredictable unknowns, there is no reason to do anything about it at all.

 

[DMC12]

well, im not sure about how real is the overpopulation of the world and sorry but the answers are too long and did not read them, not that is bad, just did not felt like it right now.

but as far as i Know, the Church idea is not to have children like an insane, but to have as many as is responsible to do, even if that goes to just having 1 kid.

The resources are bad distributed? yes, so that means that people should act like if they dont’? of course not, people should look to make that just, but in the mean time i think we should act given the resourses people is actually given. you can have 13 children? good, will their numbers make the life harder by making it harder for others to get a good job, house, food etc? then you might want to have less, after all the good being of others is important, but for this we should seek for true information about overpopulation, and stuff when planing on family.

nonetheless, its kinda hard to say that even with the resourses we have we are overpopulated. I read sometime ago that Japanese would go extinct in 300 years, Europeans are decreasing their numbers also. maybe some of us americans should start moving to those places, and both problems would be solved.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t move there yet. Wait until about 2030 and you’ll be able to just walk into abandoned housing in Florence or Tokyo for free. I sure wouldn’t want to invest in real estate there now.

 

[grinev]

I have a feeling that not everyone is properly discerning their vocation, but most people are clearly called to marriage.

I disagree. I don’t think anyone can break it down and say for certain how many people are called to marriage or not. Quite frankly, I think marriage is pushed so much onto people that most people don’t give much consideration to any other type of vocation. In the past big Catholic families were celebrated because at least one or two would decide to become religious.

 

[maryj]

youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA

Demographic winter, as seen on EWTN

 

[Cricket2]

CAFers are a small subset of Catholics and the population at large, of course, but consider: there are many married folks here who act completely in line with Church teaching on matters sexual and do not have 20 kids - for a variety of reasons: natural temporary infertility after childbirth, the use of NFP, infertility (primary or secondary), finding a spouse late in life, conversion/reversion after sterilization or contraceptive use, etc. Everyone living in accordance with Church teaching does not mean overrunning the planet instantaneously. (For one thing, we’ve still got sin here, and two - think of all the vocations we might have! )

Say my husband and I have six children before I reach menopause (a fair estimate.) Now, I don’t know what my children will do, but perhaps one of my sons discerns a vocation to the priesthood (or to the religious life, or a daughter does). Two marry young, but one struggles with infertility for many years. Another does not find a spouse until well into adulthood, so doesn’t have as many years left to have children. Perhaps my other two children remain single - because of the necessities of career or just not finding anyone, or even that they experience same sex attraction. Regardless of what happens, my having hypothetically six children does not mean I have 36 biological grandchildren (maybe one of my children will be called to foster or adopt a child). There are a lot of variables there. And even though I’m still in my 20s and healthy, who knows what could happen to me or my husband during the rest of our fertile years. We might have to avoid having future children, or we become physically unable to have more.

The thing about TFR is that it’s an average across populations. Not every woman is going to have two children, who then have two children, and so on. AFAIK, society that advances economically, throughout history, has experienced lower birth rates as health care and availability of resources improves…especially if women become more educated (delays the start of childbearing years, for one thing.) This has been going on long before contraceptive use became widespread (or reliable.)

But anyway, eyes on your own work, IMO.

Your mention of variables is a good point. I will admit some aged knowledge here, but I was a genetics student and have a BA in Biology. One of the things I learned was the following:

Suppose at this very moment 100 women conceived one child:

1. 50 would miscarry without ever knowing they had conceived…in other words they would never know they had been pregnant.
2. Of the 50 remaining 25 or 50% would miscarry in the first trimester. Most of these miscarriages would be due to chromosomal abnormalities.
3. Of the 25 remaining at leat 12 -13 (or 50%) would miscarry during their second trimester. There are a combination of reasons that include chromosomal abnormalities, illness of the mother, heart defects, accidents, injury to the fetus (amniocentesis is more dangerous than people know), lethal genes etc. This leaves 12 women able to reach their third trimester.
4. Half of the remaining women will miscarry before the end of their third trimester which leaves the potential of 6 live births for every 100 pregnancies. This is a normal rate. Of the 6 remaining women, half of those infants will be still born or die within the first year of life.

Now I said this is dated, but I think it is probably not changed that much, and may even be worse if we now included abortions, increased birth defects due to invitro practices, chemicals and pollution in our environment, increased ages of mothers and fathers which in turn increase chromosomal abnormalities…and so forth.

What this tells me then and now, is that God, through nature, has a pretty good handle on population growth. It also demonstrates what a miracle a life birth is. Our genetic makeup is so specific, so precise that the slightest error will result in defects or death. Conditions that involve the 21st chromosome (Down Syndrome) and the sex XY chromosomes are among the very few that even allow for life to be possible. Almost all others result in lethal conditions if the child is born alive, or death prior to birth.