population control

[flyingfish]

Perhaps you can find a nice gorilla family to take you in. Personally, my lot is with the humans, made in the image and likeness of God.

So is mine, and I think having a lower human population is better for us. It means each one of us would get a larger share of the planet’s resources, it means the resources would last longer (just think how much longer fossil fuels would last if there was a billion of us instead of nearly 7), it means there’d be more open and untouched spaces for us to enjoy.

 

[Lethe]

Perhaps you can find a nice gorilla family to take you in. Personally, my lot is with the humans, made in the image and likeness of God.

That is not what the original poster was arguing… Do you really think it is better for humans to have more children when they cannot support the ones they have (and some may consequentially die) or that we save an entire species, such as gorillas, from extinction? I think it’s a bit of a no-brainer… It’s not to do with whether gorillas or humans are better, it’s that it is worse for a whole species to go extinct than a few people to have children they cannot support.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it would be more prudent to have the technology first and the population increase later. It would be great if we can completely eliminate our need for fossil fuels, not only for energy but also for fertilizer, pesticide and so on.

Will we be able to do it? Who knows. You have to keep in mind that with oil due to run out in a 100 years, our ability to produce food is going to plummet. We can hope for advances in technology, but what if they don’t come? Do you realize that it would mean? Even before oil runs out, it’s going to become increasingly expensive and it’s questionable whether poorer people would have access to it.

It’s physically impossible for population growth to continue indefinitely unless we start expanding to other planets, which is unrealistic to begin with. We can either limit our numbers voluntarily or let nature do it for us. The latter option won’t be pretty.

Personally I don’t understand why people are so reluctant to acknowledge that we don’t live on an infinite planet. Why? Is it because it’s considered a “liberal” issue that conservative folk oppose it?

Maybe people don’t readily accept the idea that the world population has become unsustainable because liberals tend to think it. But it’s also possible that people don’t believe it because there are too many contraindications. After all, when did Paul Ehrlich say the population would totally outstrip all resources, with catastrophic consequences? Sometime in the 1970s?

I think it’s unrealistic to expect technological innovation to be widely implemented in advance of the need for it. There might be a thousand things, and probably are, that various innovators have come up with, but whose time has not yet come.

I am sometimes reminded of what a friend of mine, who is very much in the alternative fuels business, said. Keep in mind, now, that he’s very good at what he does and makes it pay. He mentioned all the subsidies alternative fuels are receiving, and how dependent on those subsidies those fuels are. He said the technology is 'way ahead of its time because, as he put it “No matter what you do, you can’t possibly make fuel as cheaply as you can pump it out of the ground.”

I’m inclined to agree with the guy. It isn’t as if there are no alternative resources. It’s that they are not economically viable when cheaper energy can simply be pumped out of the ground.

Since we are beginning to see some of the adverse consequences of population reduction as well as some of the obvious situations in which very highly populated countries can thrive, one really ought to question whether it is wise to panic at this time about “overpopulation”.

 

[manualman]

Yeah the Western nations populations are mostly stable. Its Africa and Asia that’s growing.

Actually, only about 1/3 of that statement is correct. Western nations are in a population death spiral. Lifetime fertility rates to sustain a level population are about 2.1 children per woman. Europe is almost universally below 1.5. The more heavily developed parts of Asia (China, Korea, Japan…) are even LOWER. Even many underdeveloped nations have dropped below replacement rates (Iran, Turkey, Mexico)
No civilization in the history of Earth has ever recovered when fertility rates dropped below 1.5.

The only reason earth’s population is still growing is the longer lifespans we have today than in most of history. Once that factor is equalized we will see plummeting populations, high percentages of elderly, school closings, TRUE housing market collapses, and overall economic decline.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

So is mine, and I think having a lower human population is better for us. It means each one of us would get a larger share of the planet’s resources, it means the resources would last longer (just think how much longer fossil fuels would last if there was a billion of us instead of nearly 7), it means there’d be more open and untouched spaces for us to enjoy.

Neither you nor I get to make that decision. It is GOD’S decision alone.

This is why I fight the greenies with all my heart. At the core is always, always, population control.

‘Save the whales, save the planet, kill some babies while you’re at it.’

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Uh huh, it’s very expensive to desalinate ocean water. Australia is doing it, but poorer nations wouldn’t have the energy resources to do it on a mass scale

Some people probably don’t make enough in a year to get smallpox vaccines. Nonetheless, smallpox sems to have been eliminated quite well. Others don’t make enough to have good medical care, yet enough people can get it to increase the lifespan on average dramatically. I think that if even the United States and China could desalinate ocean water it would take care of any water shortages. Throw in India and you should have water for about a third of the world’s population.

So is mine, and I think having a lower human population is better for us. It means each one of us would get a larger share of the planet’s resources,

But you don’t want to give up your share, right? Only poor people have to do that?

don’t think anybody has a clue as to what the “maximum human carrying capacity” of the earth is. It’s easy for people to take the current situation and (a) assume all bad things are due to overpopulation and (b) natural resources are going to run out.

A good point. The maximum carrying capacity might be zero if we suddenly had a huge nuclear war, quickly now, we need to reduce the population just in case.

 

[flyingfish]

Neither you nor I get to make that decision. It is GOD’S decision alone.

It’s really not, whether or not to have a child depends, among other things, on whether a couple is fertile and has sex during a woman’s fertile time.

In the context of Christian theology, there was only one time when God overrode biology: Jesus.

I also don’t think God controls who gets pregnant and when, because then apparently it’s God’s decision that some wealthy people are childless for selfish reasons while others have children who are literally starving to death due to a lack of food? In the context of Christianity, God gave us free will and intellect so that we might choose how to lead our lives, including whether or when to get pregnant.

 

[flyingfish]

But you don’t want to give up your share, right? Only poor people have to do that?

Essentially. I am lucky to live in a Western nation where I get such things as a good house, AC, heating, car, electricity, good food. I definitely would not be willing to give up any of these things.

It bothers me that some people live horrid lives, but it would bother me more not to have internet say, or not to have AC.

I definitely feel no duty to give anything up so that someone else can have children. I would be willing to make some small financial contributions to helping people who want to have smaller families and get educated, but again, not to the extent where it would harm my own quality of life.

Selfish? Yes, but such is human nature. I’ll be surprised if there’s ever a day when people turn off their internet connections in large numbers to provide for poor people.

 

[kelvinf]

Essentially. I am lucky to live in a Western nation where I get such things as a good house, AC, heating, car, electricity, good food. I definitely would not be willing to give up any of these things.

It bothers me that some people live horrid lives, but it would bother me more not to have internet say, or not to have AC.

I definitely feel no duty to give anything up so that someone else can have children. I would be willing to make some small financial contributions to helping people who want to have smaller families and get educated, but again, not to the extent where it would harm my own quality of life.

Selfish? Yes, but such is human nature. I’ll be surprised if there’s ever a day when people turn off their internet connections in large numbers to provide for poor people.

I have read some of your other posts and all I can tell you is that continue to enjoy and live your Western life but I don’t think it’s proper to tell others how they should live their lives.

God created Adam and Eve and provided them with natural resources. If the developed countries have exploited all their natural resources, they shouldn’t dictate to poorer countries how they should be exploiting their own resources.

I was surprised at what you said about the extinction of gorillas… What about all the resources God created in the area where you live? Where did they go to?

What makes you think that if you can’t live without an Internet connection, others wouldn’t be able to do the same? And you call it horrid lives? Wooooow.

If I were that poor and someone like you were to offer me money on condition that I have a small family, so that we wouldn’t be able to consume our share of the natural resources, so that you will be able to continue to enjoy your comfortable lifestyle, then I would consider that as a corrupt and selfish act and would throw the money back at you.

Originally from Africa (Cameroon), and currently studying in Germany, I can now really confirm that money or wealth is not everything.

About the population issue, very few developing countries are suffering from overpopulation. The surface area of my country is bigger than that of Germany but the population of Germany is about 5 times that of mine.

I also believe that people shouldn’t have big families they can’t afford to feed but being able to feed a family shouldn’t be a criteria for raising a family. We all know very well what the bible teaches about worrying about material things.

As we all know, poverty in most African countries is due to bad governance, corruption etc but if the governments of poor countries should provide their people with all the basic needs, then raising big families won’t be an issue.

And for those who can afford to raise big families, we shouldn’t try to discourage or stop them. Procreation is what all catholics are to stand for instead of worrying about how our life styles would be affected when families elsewhere grow in size.

Most African countries are just about 50 years old so one can imagine the population of Africa in decades to come.

I support the fact that the uneducated should be educated about population growth and family planning… but that should end with the uneducated. They others should be able to make decisions for themselves.

You don’t need to turn of your Internet connection, “there will always be poor people”. Maybe you could thank Jesus for that statement.

 

[flyingfish]

I was surprised at what you said about the extinction of gorillas… What about all the resources God created in the area where you live? Where did they go to?

What surprised you about what I said? I live in Canada, we have one of the lowest population densities in the world and plenty of resources.

You don’t need to turn of your Internet connection, “there will always be poor people”. Maybe you could thank Jesus for that statement.

I know I don’t need to, I was just making a point that if all of us Westerners decided to make personal sacrifices we could make a significant difference in the lives of the poor. But whatever people might say, a very tiny few actually make sacrifices.

You don’t see anyone selling their houses or sharing a house with say 2 other families, you don’t see people selling their cars, or cutting off electricity or internet and so on. People generally will not help others if it means hurting themselves.

 

[kelvinf]

The main reason I am concerned about overpopulation is that large populations in some areas of the world are destroying habitats for other species, driving them to extinction. It would be really sad if for example chimps or gorillas went extinct because too many people cut down jungles or killed them for food/money. There are so many people, but once those species are gone they’re gone forever.

Fewer people would mean less pollution, more room for other forms of life, as well as more resources available for the people. The more people there are, the less resources there are for everyone, and the bigger the environmental impact.

I also doubt that poor women in third world countries want to have large families, they probably have no other choice because birth control is not available to them and because they are uneducated.

Are you pro-life? If I may ask, what birth control are you referring to which you think is not available in third world countries?

By the way, what is overpopulation for you?

What is a large family? 2, 3, 4, … 8 children?
Is there anybody who can sincerely answer this question?

You don’t see anyone selling their houses or sharing a house with say 2 other families, you don’t see people selling their cars, or cutting off electricity or internet and so on. People generally will not help others if it means hurting themselves.

Maybe the majority nowadays won’t do that, but there are definitely people who have / are / will do that.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we saw how the apostles were molding a community based on sharing and love for one another.
There are so many saints who gave up all they had to serve the lord and help others. Like St. Clare and the rest.

Together, we could continue building the kind of community the apostles were building.

God created the world and gave us the gift of procreation. He should have or should be the one to worry about overpopulation (if there is actually overpopulation on earth)

 

[Ridgerunner]

People generally will not help others if it means hurting themselves.

A lot of soldiers and former soldiers would disagree with this. So would the very large number of people who really do give to help others, and sacrifice to do so. Certainly, most parents do. In light of what you earlier said about giving up the internet, etc, you might be projecting your own attributes onto others, and not justifiably so.

 

[flyingfish]

Are you pro-life? If I may ask, what birth control are you referring to which you think is not available in third world countries?

If by pro-life you mean anti-abortion, no I’m not. Since it’s a Catholic forum, NFP would be the way to go.

By the way, what is overpopulation for you?

When there aren’t enough resources given current technology to provide everyone with a high quality of life while at the same time leaving a significant fraction of the Earth untouched and entirely for the use of other species.

God created the world and gave us the gift of procreation. He should have or should be the one to worry about overpopulation (if there is actually overpopulation on earth)

God also gave us free will and intellect so that we might decide when to have children.

 

[flyingfish]

A lot of soldiers and former soldiers would disagree with this. So would the very large number of people who really do give to help others, and sacrifice to do so. Certainly, most parents do. In light of what you earlier said about giving up the internet, etc, you might be projecting your own attributes onto others, and not justifiably so.

I’m just saying what I observe around me. I’ve never been in the military, but I live in an average Canadian community and hang out with average Canadians all the time. Here is what I see: nearly everyone has a fancy phone like an iPhone, the monthly bill for which is pretty hefty, nearly everyone has a relatively expensive laptop, everyone has broadband internet, everyone lives in a decent place, and so on. Nearly everyone continuously buys Starbucks coffee, and eats out. I rarely, if ever, see people bringing their own food from home, say.

This is what I see around me every day. Even giving up something simple like the expensive coffee and giving that money to the poor could make a difference in someone’s life. The price of a single coffee is enough to sponsor 3 orphans in one of those 3rd world nation, as far as I know. Yet, I don’t see people doing it. People would rather have their Starbucks than buy meals for 3rd world orphans.

People generally don’t care. They might donate once in a while, probably to feel good abou themselves, but I don’t see people making real sacrifices.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m just saying what I observe around me. I’ve never been in the military, but I live in an average Canadian community and hang out with average Canadians all the time. Here is what I see: nearly everyone has a fancy phone like an iPhone, the monthly bill for which is pretty hefty, nearly everyone has a relatively expensive laptop, everyone has broadband internet, everyone lives in a decent place, and so on. Nearly everyone continuously buys Starbucks coffee, and eats out. I rarely, if ever, see people bringing their own food from home, say.

This is what I see around me every day. Even giving up something simple like the expensive coffee and giving that money to the poor could make a difference in someone’s life. The price of a single coffee is enough to sponsor 3 orphans in one of those 3rd world nation, as far as I know. Yet, I don’t see people doing it. People would rather have their Starbucks than buy meals for 3rd world orphans.

People generally don’t care. They might donate once in a while, probably to feel good abou themselves, but I don’t see people making real sacrifices.

I would say maybe you need a new circle of friends, old buddy. I might not be the most generous guy in the world, but I have never had a Starbucks coffee in my life, and am unlikely ever to buy one. Waste of money when I can make a pot of coffee myself. I bring my lunch to work every day, even though I own the business. Only one of my partners doesn’t, but she doesn’t have any children, so I guess she can afford it and has trouble cooking for just herself. All of my employees bring their lunches, though I will have to admit some of those microwave things some of them bring look a little pricey to me.

I’ll admit. Now and then I take my wife out to dinner. It’s a different thing for women, you know. Well, and sometimes we take donuts over to our grandchildren on Sunday morning after Mass. Sometimes I’ll bake a pie for them, though I think it’s probably just as expensive as the donuts if you add it all up.

I’m not going to say what I give to charity or to individuals. That’s for God and me alone to know. But, for example, there’s a guy here in town who, every year, year in and year out, serves Thanksgiving Dinner to anyone who comes. And a lot do. Mostly old people, or people with a lot of kids and not a lot of money. Dozens and dozens of them. He rents out a hall for it. And he isn’t rich.

I know a woman who drives 45 miles one way almost every day of the week to work in a charity kitchen for nothing. She isn’t wealthy either. It’s just the thing she does.

There are a lot of people like that. Some do have money. I know a guy who made probably ten million or twenty million on his own because he’s really inventive and has a good business head. He loans people money to keep them out of foreclosure. Low rates, easy terms. Sometimes he doesn’t get it back, but never sues for it. I saw him loan a million dollars once to a farm family that was facing foreclosure. (Farms are expensive, and they had cattle too.) He nursed them along for three years until they could get back on their feet and refinance. He and his wife are white, but they have adopted three mixed-race kids; children of alcoholic or drug using mothers. Taking a big chance with that. What other charitable things he does, I don’t know. He doesn’t talk about it. All I know is what I see. He probably does ten things for every one I see. He does get wealthier, I’ll admit that. He’s a genius.

I know lots of people who give of themselves. Like I said, you might need to start running with a different crowd. But one thing you need to know is that people who give a lot almost never talk about it. So it’s not so easy to know.

I’ll grant that there are a lot of selfish people in this world. But they aren’t all.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

If I may ask, what birth control are you referring to which you think is not available in third world countries?

Kelvinf, I agree with every single statement you made, but I really wanted to expand on this.

birth control pill → breast cancer
abortion → breast cancer

This is where we stand right now in the affluent West, and this is what we want to export to Africa?

According to a cancer epidemiological study, the incidence of breast cancer in the USA is currently 9 times higher than in one of the poor African countries (Gabon or Ghana, I don’t remember which one). Epidemiologists are trying to figure out why exactly do we have so much breast cancer in the affluent countries, and many factors could be involved, including the use of plasticizers and other chemicals with estrogen mimics properties, a different diet with less vegetables and more fats and meat, etc. But here’s a biggie that made my jaw drop: a woman who has been on the chemical birth control (pill, patch) at any point of time during the past five years, is 4.2 times more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which is the worst kind of breast cancer (negative for estrogen, progesterone, HER2 receptors, not amenable to therapy with estrogen antagonists, aromatase inhibitors, herceptin; and generally more aggressive and with a poorer prognosis than other cancers). In my mind, these findings are so scary, so important, that we should be screaming them from the rooftops! I suspect some other types of drugs would be recalled if such damning evidence came to light regarding their dangerous side-effects! Meanwhile, we have NFP for those who want to practice it, which is simply abstaining from sexual relations during a woman’s fertile period, no drug needed, it doesn’t cost money, it is not unethical (of course, you have to be in a valid marriage, LOL), and it doesn’t cause breast cancer! Also, with the pill/patch, those women who had predisposing factors for breast cancer (BRCA1/2 gene mutations), got the breast cancer every single time in a small study (there were some 18 women who had these predisposing factors, and used the chemical birth control, and every single one of them got breast cancer! ). Thus it looks like using the chemical birth control is equivalent to being sentenced to breast cancer, for this high-risk group of women. I’m a pharmacist by profession and have been working in cancer research for the last 13 years. I started to dig deeper into the information that’s out there, in the form of published studies in reputable scientific journals, and I came away horrified by what I found. I suspect the institutions in the Western world that could educate the public about these risks are not doing enough to educate people, and possibly save lives! Based on what I learned, I will not advise any of my friends and family to use chemical birth control, not only because it’s immoral, but also because it’s dangerous!!

Oops, and I haven’t even mentioned other risks of chemical birth control, such as stroke, heart attack, deep vein thrombosis…

There’s also a positive correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Such findings that women who had 1 or more abortions run a 60% higher risk of getting diagnosed with breast cancer, can be traced back in part to the fact that the later a woman has her first child, the higher her risk of breast cancer. There’s also a risk for breast cancer caused by abortion, independently or additively, if you will, to the “age at first child birth” component.

God created the world and gave us the gift of procreation. He should have or should be the one to worry about overpopulation (if there is actually overpopulation on earth)

Exactly! Those who are overly worried about “overpopulation” have either never read the account of Jesus Christ feeding the multitudes of people with just 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread, or they don’t have a strong enough faith in the Lord and Creator of the universe. At any rate, all I want them is to leave me alone just as I leave them alone. But what the spooky :hypno: Al Gore wanted to implement, with his Cap-and-Trade bill, was legislation to TAX ME AND TRAMPLE ON ME! :bigyikes: We cannot ignore these kooks and crazies, because they really want to play God and infringe on our rights to live in freedom! These lunatics WANT TO ENSLAVE US, frankly, and WE MUST BE VIGILENT AND FIGHT THEM BACK! :knight2: :knight1:

 

[flyingfish]

I’ll grant that there are a lot of selfish people in this world. But they aren’t all.

They really are the majority though. I mean, the example of the wealthy man you gave who helps people keep their houses isn’t exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

It’s easy to give when you are rich, it’s hard to give when it means going without. If you have 20 million and you give 5 million away, you’re not going to feel it in your daily life. That’s what I mean when I say people don’t give when it actually hurts them.

Try asking someone to give up internet (I’m bringing it up because it’s something we all have), for a year to sponsor some third world kids, they’ll laugh at you.

 

[rwillenborg]

What’s this nonsense about illiteracy meaning you couldn’t use NFP?
Rubbish.
I never read a lick on NFP. I just listened to what an instructor told me. And I use tick marks on a piece of paper. No reading or ‘writing’ (at least not writing letters) necessary.
A few things I don’t understand

1. Why is it that the people who are so very concerned about there being too many people in the world aren’t willing to off themselves? Why is it always the poor people who live far, far away that should go?
2. Why do people want to reduce the NUMBER of people who live here, rather than reducing the THINGS that people do which are damaging to the environment? Honestly, would we even be having this conversation is Americans rode their bikes more often? I don’t think so.

 

[flyingfish]

1. Why is it that the people who are so very concerned about there being too many people in the world aren’t willing to off themselves? Why is it always the poor people who live far, far away that should go?

No one is saying existing people should be “offed”, it’s about how many new people are produced.

1. Why do people want to reduce the NUMBER of people who live here, rather than reducing the THINGS that people do which are damaging to the environment? Honestly, would we even be having this conversation is Americans rode their bikes more often? I don’t think so.

A lot of the things that damage the environment are what make life worth living. From household appliances, to technology, to food, all these things use energy and resources.

We could have a much smaller impact on the environment by having each family live in a staw hut with a dirt floor, get water from the river, grow own food, obviously no electricity or anything of the kind… but who wants to live that kind of a life? I sure don’t, and definitely not for the sake of more people.

 

[rwillenborg]

I’m just saying what I observe around me. I’ve never been in the military, but I live in an average Canadian community and hang out with average Canadians all the time. Here is what I see: nearly everyone has a fancy phone like an iPhone, the monthly bill for which is pretty hefty, nearly everyone has a relatively expensive laptop, everyone has broadband internet, everyone lives in a decent place, and so on. Nearly everyone continuously buys Starbucks coffee, and eats out. I rarely, if ever, see people bringing their own food from home, say.

This is what I see around me every day. Even giving up something simple like the expensive coffee and giving that money to the poor could make a difference in someone’s life. The price of a single coffee is enough to sponsor 3 orphans in one of those 3rd world nation, as far as I know. Yet, I don’t see people doing it. People would rather have their Starbucks than buy meals for 3rd world orphans.

People generally don’t care. They might donate once in a while, probably to feel good abou themselves, but I don’t see people making real sacrifices.

Have you gone to do some volunteer work anywhere lately? Maybe you could organize your starbucks swigging friends at an area soup kitchen or something? It might be something you find that you enjoy very much! And, in the process, you might expand your world view and discover that some people are not, in fact, as you described. If I’m wrong, you lost, what, a couple hours of your time? No big deal. You, and your friends, might find it’s something you really enjoy. You might also discover that sacrifice, even real and difficult sacrifice actually isn’t all that hard when you think it’s worth it.

By the way, my husband wanted to sponsor third world kids. I crunched the numbers. We could sponsor 4 if we stopped eating fast food. Isn’t that pathetic? It wasn’t even a real decision. Let’s see…give up gross, fatty, fast food so that four children can get clothes, food, and an education. This isn’t even really called a choice, is it?
It’s a no brainer.
Fast food’s gone.
Pics of the sponsored kids are on the fridge.
My point is simply that you might serve yourself well to broaden your world view and meet men and women who don’t find sacrifice to be all that, well, bad of a thing. I suspect maybe even your friends wouldn’t mind putting down the latte if they thought the money would be better spent elsewhere, on something they loved.

Starbucks coffee tastes like dirt anyway. Do people still drink that swill? Blech.

Oh yeah, and my internet access is free.