population control

  • Thread starter Thread starter likuske
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

likuske

Guest
Why do you hear (in the secular news and universities) people talking about population control and wanting to limit the population if at least here in the U.S. our pop. is not growing (I heard it’s only remaining stable due to immigration) and in Europe it’s actually declining?
 
Because they see horrible pictures of places that are poverty ridden and think its due to over-population. When in fact its directly due to greedy people who control the wealth of that country or culture. There is plenty of land and food. You could fit all the population of the world in Texas and Arkansas with a family of 4 on a 8000sqft plot, which is a lot less then others live on.
 
likuske said:
Why do you hear (in the secular news and universities) people talking about population control and wanting to limit the population if at least here in the U.S. our pop. is not growing (I heard it’s only remaining stable due to immigration) and in Europe it’s actually declining?
Click to expand...
Yeah the Western nations populations are mostly stable. Its Africa and Asia that’s growing.
 
likuske said:
Why do you hear (in the secular news and universities) people talking about population control and wanting to limit the population if at least here in the U.S. our pop. is not growing (I heard it’s only remaining stable due to immigration) and in Europe it’s actually declining?
Click to expand...
Because they serve the lord of death.
 
rep140 said:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Check out this link. In the poorest countries in the world women have 5+ children while the in the richest women don’t have enough to replenish the population. The Church position about no birth control insures perpetual poverty in these countries. Try promoting and teaching NFP in a country where people can not read or write.
Click to expand...
And you call yourself Catholic? You are defying one of the keystones of Holy Mother Church.

That’s what missionaries are for—to teach people who can neither read nor write. Sounds like you are inventing excuses.
 
On questions of Population I send all to:

The Population Research Institute (as seen on EWTN)

pop.org/

Very good.
 
rep140 said:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Check out this link. In the poorest countries in the world women have 5+ children while the in the richest women don’t have enough to replenish the population. The Church position about no birth control insures perpetual poverty in these countries. Try promoting and teaching NFP in a country where people can not read or write.
Click to expand...
It has been done…and done well! By Mother Teresa’s sisters as I recall…to the poorest of the poor…

one does not need to read or write!

best source for real understanding of population pop.org/
 
rep140 said:
Try promoting and teaching NFP in a country where people can not read or write.
Click to expand...
This is the problem with the “population control” people. They treat the people in impoverished countries like they are ignorant breeders who just don’t know any better. So they give them powerful drugs and disposable devices that will make them infertile, constantly dependent on aid, and without any real solution for family planning. But, NFP is knowledge. NFP is empowering. NFP recognizes that people in impoverished countries aren’t ignorant, they’re just poor. That’s why Mother Teresa was so successful in Calcutta (.004% pregnancy rate). The U.S. Agency for International Development even promotes forms of Natural Family Planning (jhpiego.jhu.edu/media/featarticles/ft20030506.htm). And one peer reviewed article even noted that “According to the World Health Organisation, 93% of women everywhere can identify the symptoms, which distinguish adequately between the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle.” (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1678728/).
 
I think we should take a lesson from some of the people in those third world countries with 5 or more children. In this country whenever someone gets pregnant it seems to be a disease and first question is “what are you going to do?” In those countries a pregnancy is celebrated, it IS new life afterall. We need to celebrate pregnancy all around the world and soon we will realize there is no overpopulation problem, just an underappreciation of pregnancy problem.
 
It’s interesting to consider how fragile human populations actually are. Fifty years of no births and there would be no human race at all.

That’s unlikely, but in my occupation I frequently see records where large families died out completely or reduced from, say, a family of ten to maybe one great grandchild. Right now, the U.S. is at just replacement rate, largely due to larger immigrant families. But for that, it would be on the decline. And it wouldn’t take much in the way of increased deaths or infertility or simply family limitation, to send the population spiraling downward.

And yet, I can drive in any direction for miles and miles and miles and not see a single dwelling place. In some places there is not only no farming, there are places where I can drive five or ten miles and not even see a single cow. Just nothing. This country is, in my opinion, quite underpopulated.

Now, we’re looking at too few workers to sustain too many retirees. We’re going to reap what we sowed, and soon. No question about that.
 
Jermosh said:
Because they see horrible pictures of places that are poverty ridden and think its due to over-population. When in fact its directly due to greedy people who control the wealth of that country or culture. There is plenty of land and food.** You could fit all the population of the world in Texas and Arkansas with a family of 4 on a 8000sqft plot, which is a lot less then others live on.**
Click to expand...
Yes, you could. You could also fit a billion people into a giant 1000m x 1000m x 1000m cube with a cubic meter per person (a meter is about 3 feet). You’d have to curl up, but you’d fit.

The problem of overpopulation isn’t a problem of how many people can you pack into an area. You have to remember that those people need huge amounts of land where their food is grown. Eating meat alone requires a lot of land to grow food for the cows, a lot of water and so on. Also resources like fossil fuels etc. are to be taken into account.

Today, with current technology, we do not have enough resources for everyone to enjoy a Western lifestyle. The earth could indeed accommodate many more people, but at a cost. Something like 20 billion people could live on Earth if everyone had the kind of lifestyle that African poor have today. If you want everyone to live as well as Americans, we have to cut our population to something like 2 billion.
 
flyingfish said:
Yes, you could. You could also fit a billion people into a giant 1000m x 1000m x 1000m cube with a cubic meter per person (a meter is about 3 feet). You’d have to curl up, but you’d fit.

The problem of overpopulation isn’t a problem of how many people can you pack into an area. You have to remember that those people need huge amounts of land where their food is grown. Eating meat alone requires a lot of land to grow food for the cows, a lot of water and so on. Also resources like fossil fuels etc. are to be taken into account.

Today, with current technology, we do not have enough resources for everyone to enjoy a Western lifestyle. The earth could indeed accommodate many more people, but at a cost. Something like 20 billion people could live on Earth if everyone had the kind of lifestyle that African poor have today. If you want everyone to live as well as Americans, we have to cut our population to something like 2 billion.
Click to expand...
Actaully we do not need huge tracks of land to grow food, how much of our farm lands do you think actually goes to producing food? 8000sqft is plenty of land to grow vegtables and some protein, grain and other stables can be grown in other parts of the world. The Western diet should change, its unhealthy and bad for the enviroment.
 
Jermosh said:
Actaully we do not need huge tracks of land to grow food, how much of our farm lands do you think actually goes to producing food? 8000sqft is plenty of land to grow vegtables and some protein, grain and other stables can be grown in other parts of the world. The Western diet should change, its unhealthy and bad for the enviroment.
Click to expand...
If we gave up meat, we could be much more efficient. Meat is an extremely inefficient way to grow food. However, as it stands today the growth in farming output is not keeping up with population. Farming today also is completely dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer, pesticide, and equipment. The high yield strains of crops that are absolutely necessary to feed the world’s population will not grow unless covered in pesticide, fertilizer, irrigated and so on.

As fossil fuels become more expensive and eventually run out, people in the poorer parts of the world will be screwed. There are also increasing issues with the availability of water.

We really need a technological breakthrough in farming technology of the magnitude of the Green Revolution to keep up.

And Westerners can sustain our wealthy lifestyle only to a point, China and India’s middle class is growing and so is the demand for fossil fuels. Unless we make some big technological developments, we’re likely all going to feel it, not just the poor nations. Well, saying this assuming you’re young. If you’re old and on your way out, you probably won’t feel it.
 
flyingfish said:
If we gave up meat, we could be much more efficient. Meat is an extremely inefficient way to grow food. However, as it stands today the growth in farming output is not keeping up with population. Farming today also is completely dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer, pesticide, and equipment. The high yield strains of crops that are absolutely necessary to feed the world’s population will not grow unless covered in pesticide, fertilizer, irrigated and so on.

As fossil fuels become more expensive and eventually run out, people in the poorer parts of the world will be screwed. There are also increasing issues with the availability of water.

We really need a technological breakthrough in farming technology of the magnitude of the Green Revolution to keep up.

And Westerners can sustain our wealthy lifestyle only to a point, China and India’s middle class is growing and so is the demand for fossil fuels. Unless we make some big technological developments, we’re likely all going to feel it, not just the poor nations. Well, saying this assuming you’re young. If you’re old and on your way out, you probably won’t feel it.
Click to expand...
Meat is only inefficient because of the way we raise them currently. Not to long ago it was very efficient since animals ate things that humans did or could not eat. I am really not seeing your point, again there is plenty of food, the only reason why people are starving is not becuase of the lack of food but of cultural and political agendas of tyrants.
 
flyingfish said:
If we gave up meat, we could be much more efficient. Meat is an extremely inefficient way to grow food. However, as it stands today the growth in farming output is not keeping up with population. Farming today also is completely dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer, pesticide, and equipment. The high yield strains of crops that are absolutely necessary to feed the world’s population will not grow unless covered in pesticide, fertilizer, irrigated and so on.
Click to expand...
True in part, untrue in part.

Beef production utilizes the approximately 1/3 of the land in the U.S. that isn’t suitable for anything other than grass. Grass is indigestible to humans. You can eat it all day long and you would still starve to death. Beef production requires nothing in the way of pesticides, little in the way of fertilizer (none if you do it right, but it’s not easy) and almost no equipment. Very little fossil fuel is used for any purpose.

Where it gets less “efficient” is when beef is “finished” on grain.That’s not a long period of time for those animals that are “finished”. (The minority, actually) That is an American thing. In Australia, people prefer totally grass fed. It’s a matter of taste. Even so, much of the grain that’s fed to animals is not of the type that is useful to humans.

Poultry and hogs are, indeed, raised almost entirely on grain. Still, I have never seen it persuasively argued that humans are more efficient in the utilization of grain eaten directly, than they are in utilizing meat that is produced by feeding grain to animals. If not, then the whole “let’s feed grain directly to people” argument fails.

I think it might be tough to prove. During fast growth periods, for example, the usual conversion ratio with steers is 1:3. In other words, three pounds of “grain” produces one pound of beef. A LOT of that “grain” is actually grain by-product besides. Brewers’ grain, rice hulls, etc.; things people don’t eat.
 
CatofAlexandria said:
This is the problem with the “population control” people. They treat the people in impoverished countries like they are ignorant breeders who just don’t know any better.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

The same with all the squishy-thinking vegans who want to press everyone into their same mold.

God gave us DOMINION over the earth. How hard is that to understand? And it includes eating meat.

I never, ever see us meat-eaters trying to shove a cow down veggie throats. But I sure see a lot of VERY sanctimonius pressure in the opposite direction.
 
rep140 said:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Check out this link. In the poorest countries in the world women have 5+ children while the in the richest women don’t have enough to replenish the population. The Church position about no birth control insures perpetual poverty in these countries. Try promoting and teaching NFP in a country where people can not read or write.
Click to expand...
Try promoting and teaching NFP in a country where people can not read or write? Mother Theresa did and it worked. She taught the women in the slums of Calcutta NFP and they got it just fine. The true poverty is not respecting or understanding God’s plan for our bodies and soul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top