population control

[flyingfish]

Have you gone to do some volunteer work anywhere lately?

Last time I did volunteer work, the volunteers were students looking to beef up their CV’s to look better to grad school admissions (that was why I volunteered as well).

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?

For most people it’s also not really a choice, only they choose the opposite. For those of us who aren’t getting internet for free like yourself, we prefer having internet access to providing clothes, food, and education for additional children.

 

[rwillenborg]

For most people it’s also not really a choice, only they choose the opposite. For those of us who aren’t getting internet for free like yourself, we prefer having internet access to providing clothes, food, and education for additional children.

Internet is always free at the library.

 

[rwillenborg]

For most people it’s also not really a choice, only they choose the opposite. For those of us who aren’t getting internet for free like yourself, we prefer having internet access to providing clothes, food, and education for additional children.

Why would anyone choose the opposite? Fast food is gross, and you can usually make food that tastes better, and is cheaper and takes about just as long to make at home. Honestly, I can throw together a salad with some hard boiled eggs on top in LESS time than it takes to get through the line at the fast food place.

I don’t know why you would prefer internet access to helping children. All you get on the internet is dummies like me spouting off.

 

[kelvinf]

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

Very well then. I hope you make use of your free will and also allow others to do the same.

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 also disagree with this one. Okay, maybe in the community where you live but not everywhere for sure.
Just to add to what the others have already pointed out:-
I was touched by the international response (especially from the US) to help Haiti after the devastating earthquake.
From my perspective, it was like every American wanted to go down there to help. Those who went there sacrificed a lot. They left their comfortable lifestyles and families behind to help others.

I mean, for all major disasters worldwide, we see people leaving behind everything they have to help others.
Let alone the many NGOs worldwide. These are mainly people from developed countries leaving behind everything to serve a purpose or impact the lives of others.

Dian Fossey did a lot to save gorillas in west and central Africa. She gave up everything and lost her life in the process. These are people who have made sacrifices. So if you are really interested in saving those gorillas, then…
Keep in mind that people like Dian Fossey were not saving gorillas in order to sustain a comfortable life style for others.

God makes a lot of demands from us Christians (and one of them is to give up those things we like very much during lent). Christians are also encouraged to practice mortification.
The cardinal virtues, especially temperance (for me), can also help us a lot.

So can we live without Internet? YES WE CAN!

There are circa 7 billion people on earth and just about 2 billion of us use the Internet. So can people live without the Internet?
Or maybe the other 5 billion are the poorest of the poorest?
Oh! What about people like John Mccain. Can he use a computer?

The society does not prevent us from living the kind of lifestyles we like. Man cannot dictate to another man how he should spend his money but as Catholics, God requires a lot from us and we shouldn’t let society influence that. God has promised us that our reward would be great if we invest our treasures in heaven instead of earth.

My aim of joining this forum was to learn and grow in faith and my expectation is that we would get to be speaking the same language.

God knows how to control the population on earth. The world’s population is still very far from nearing the surface area of land on earth, I believe.

 

[flyingfish]

Why would anyone choose the opposite? Fast food is gross, and you can usually make food that tastes better, and is cheaper and takes about just as long to make at home. Honestly, I can throw together a salad with some hard boiled eggs on top in LESS time than it takes to get through the line at the fast food place.

Judging by the obesity problem, people generally like fast food. But fast food is not the point, my point was that the vast majority of people will not “give til it hurts”, they will give only so long as it doesn’t hurt their own quality of life.

To a degree giving actually makes people feel better. It’s a nice feeling to feel like you’re a good and generous person, so people will give. But you won’t see people give up things they need for their own happiness to save some third world child.

I don’t know why you would prefer internet access to helping children. All you get on the internet is dummies like me spouting off.

Because internet is entertaining and increases the quality of my life, I use the internet for a lot of things so losing it would greatly outweigh whatever benefit I might feel from helping someone else.

That is why I (and vast majority of others), do not disconnect their internet in order to send that money to sponsor kids.

You’re not even going to see people downgrading to slow and cheap internet to send that money to sponsor starving kids. Just like you own’t see people turn off their AC in order to donate the money they save to third world kids, sell their car and starting taking the bus, move into a house with 2 other families, etc.

Very, very few will make a real sacrifice.

God knows how to control the population on earth. The world’s population is still very far from nearing the surface area of land on earth, I believe.

This is a very misleading statement. Overpopulation is not about running out of surface area to put people on, it’s about resources. The surface area needed to grow food for a person for instance, is far greater than the surface area the person will occupy. Fossil fuels, same thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

For many wealthy people it seems harder to give than it does for people who are not so wealthy. There is no certain correllation of which I am aware. I have collected for charity at Walmart and on the street, and one is often surprised at the generosity of people who, by appearance, are really on the low end of the economic scale. On the other hand, I have seen published material purporting to establish that certain people of wealth (those who create it themselves) are more generous than those who do not have wealth and those who inherit it.

If you look at First Responders and volunteer firefighters and search and rescue people around here, for example, most of them are just wage earners. Those people really do give of themselves, sometimes at the risk of their own safety and lives. They get absolutely nothing for doing it.

Again, I think it’s possible you are running with the wrong crowd. But again, people who give of themselves don’t talk about it. It’s possible some of those people you disdain are a good deal more generous than you know.

 

[flyingfish]

Again, I think it’s possible you are running with the wrong crowd. But again, people who give of themselves don’t talk about it. It’s possible some of those people you disdain are a good deal more generous than you know.

You misunderstand me, I have nothing against selfish people. I’m one of them. This whole discussion got started at someone’s suggestion that I’m a horrible person for being unwilling to give up the comforts of Western life so that someone else can feed their large family.

To that person I pose the question: Why haven’t you disconnected the internet and used that money to sponsor (additional if you’re already sponsoring) third world kids?

If you value your own access to internet (among other non-essentials you have) more than the food, shelter you could provide to some 3rd world child, then you have no business being outraged by my statement since you’re just like me.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Again, this is GOD’S decision alone. Assumption, arrogance, and disregard of His holy laws is commonplace today to the point of nausea.

This is OUR world, not some species of ape, not that of some nonsentient tree.

This is not opinion. This is fact. Greenies are, at their heart, always anti-life.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

For many wealthy people it seems harder to give than it does for people who are not so wealthy. There is no certain correllation of which I am aware. I have collected for charity at Walmart and on the street, and one is often surprised at the generosity of people who, by appearance, are really on the low end of the economic scale.

You might put me in that category. I always ‘dress down’ just for comfort’s sake.

In fact, a salesman at a carpet warehouse lost a sale because he made a rude remark about my dress. Because I don’t wear a designer name on my rear does not mean I can’t afford what I was looking to buy.

An assumption on his part, coupled with discourtesy, lost my business. (note that I am NOT accusing you of same, far from it—just that appearances sometimes deceive).

But really we are blessed to be in the middle range. And we do contribute what we can.

 

[flyingfish]

Again, this is GOD’S decision alone.

It’s not Catholic teaching that whether a child is conceived is God’s decision alone. Otherwise, why would NFP even be taught if the couple gets no say, and why would artificial birth control be opposed?

We do have a say, or God’s will happens to exactly coincide with biology.

This is OUR world, not some species of ape, not that of some nonsentient tree.

Do you wanna live in a barren world? I don’t. You want your descendants to read about the animals of today the way we read about dinosaurs, never seeing them? You don’t enjoy nature?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You misunderstand me, I have nothing against selfish people. I’m one of them. This whole discussion got started at someone’s suggestion that I’m a horrible person for being unwilling to give up the comforts of Western life so that someone else can feed their large family.

To that person I pose the question: Why haven’t you disconnected the internet and used that money to sponsor (additional if you’re already sponsoring) third world kids?

If you value your own access to internet (among other non-essentials you have) more than the food, shelter you could provide to some 3rd world child, then you have no business being outraged by my statement since you’re just like me.

It is not given to any of us to judge another’s soul, though objectively evil actions may be condemned.

If you can’t stand to contribute to the support of third world kids who come from large families, then perhaps you could find it in your heart to contribute to the support of first world kids who come from small families?

But the real question in this thread, as I read it, is whether population control is somehow needed in the world we have. Since most poverty worldwide appears to be due to misgovernance, not the earth’s capacity, it seems focusing on population is misguided.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you wanna live in a barren world? I don’t. You want your descendants to read about the animals of today the way we read about dinosaurs, never seeing them? You don’t enjoy nature?

I think it’s pretty plain that the survival of wild creatures depends very much on the wealth and knowledge of the populace where they naturally occur. As mentioned before, the wildlife in the area in which I live is massively greater and more diverse than it was when I was a child. That’s because of greater wealth of the populace and better knowledge. Certain animals, however, are inherently dangerous to humans and, in my opinion, have no place in populated areas, particularly when there are reserves set aside where they can be preserved. I doubt you would want mountain lions in your neighborhood, for example, any more than I would. Early settlers’ accounts of depredations by them make it very clear that one was not even safe from them in one’s house.

I see no benefit to anything in returning most parts of the world to a “wild state” just to do it. In any event, I daresay there is noplace on earth other than Antarctica and perhaps some few desert areas, that any human has seen in a 'natural state" for millenia. The entire earth, other than those few hellholes, has been altered by man. Nobody knows what a “natural state” is in any liveable climate.

 

[flyingfish]

If you can’t stand to contribute to the support of third world kids who come from large families, then perhaps you could find it in your heart to contribute to the support of first world kids who come from small families?

I’m not opposed to helping (and have donated) so long as it doesn’t decrease my quality of life. But I do see helping in any way other than birth control and education as pointless. If I help someone eat, they’ll just have more babies and be back to square 1, with not enough food for their kids.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

not to the extent where it would harm my own quality of life.

How exactly will poor people doing what they want harm your quality of life?

If I help someone eat, they’ll just have more babies and be back to square 1, with not enough food for their kids.

More kids to help with farming=more food.

You want your descendants to read about the animals of today the way we read about dinosaurs, never seeing them? You don’t enjoy nature?

If I end up poor I don’t want to be told that Joe the beurocrat gets to decide how many kids I have.

 

[flyingfish]

How exactly will poor people doing what they want harm your quality of life?

I was taking about donating, if the harm from lost money exceeds the feel good benefits of donating, it would harm my quality of life.

More kids to help with farming=more food.

Maybe if you’re starving because you don’t have enough people to work on your farm. If you’re starving because there’s been a drought for a while and nothing is growing, if you’re starving because you can’t earn enough to buy enough food or because there are no jobs to begin with, having more kids likely won’t help you much.

If I end up poor I don’t want to be told that Joe the beurocrat gets to decide how many kids I have.

But Joe could decide to make his help to you conditional on how many kids you have.

 

[kelvinf]

But I do see helping in any way other than birth control and education as pointless.

It’s true that educating the uneducated would have a positive impact. Maybe you could take the lead here since its exactly what you will like to see happen. Maybe start a foundation aimed at promoting education and family planning. We would stand by your side.
(just thinking aloud but who knows?).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not opposed to helping (and have donated) so long as it doesn’t decrease my quality of life. But I do see helping in any way other than birth control and education as pointless. If I help someone eat, they’ll just have more babies and be back to square 1, with not enough food for their kids.

You keep assuming your premise. Nothing you say matters until you demonstrate, empirically, that the world is overpopulated relative to its inherent resource base. You haven’t done that. You have just assumed it by reasoning from effect (poverty in some places) to cause (overpopulation). It’s an invalid analysis; every bit as invalid as seeing a troop of pimply-faced adolescents emerging from a high school carrying books, and concluding that carrying books causes pimples.

 

[flyingfish]

You keep assuming your premise. Nothing you say matters until you demonstrate, empirically, that the world is overpopulated relative to its inherent resource base. You haven’t done that. You have just assumed it by reasoning from effect (poverty in some places) to cause (overpopulation). It’s an invalid analysis; every bit as invalid as seeing a troop of pimply-faced adolescents emerging from a high school carrying books, and concluding that carrying books causes pimples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare

The global hectare (gha) is a measurement of biocapacity of the entire earth - one global hectare is a measurement of the average biocapacity of all hectare measurements of any biologically productive areas on the planet. If you take the sum of the world’s biocapacity, then divide it by the number hectares on the earth’s surface, you get the biocapacity of one average earth hectare. When the term ‘global hectare per person’ is used, it refers to the amount of biologically productive land and water available per person on the planet. eg. In 2005 there were 13.4 billion hectares of biologically productive land and water available and 6.5 billion people on the planet.[1] This is an average of 2.1 global hectares per person.

scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=biocapacity&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=overpopulation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=desertification&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

If you’re really interested. But I have linked things of this sort before, people who are resolved not to think the earth is overpopulated just ignore them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare

scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=biocapacity&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=overpopulation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=desertification&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

If you’re really interested. But I have linked things of this sort before, people who are resolved not to think the earth is overpopulated just ignore them.

These are all opinion pieces, and this “global hectare” business is totally opinion. I’m not too impressed with Wikipedia either, since anybody can put anything on it. Here are some facts:

From 1950 to 1992, crop production went up 2.75 times in the U.S.
However, land used for crops decreased from 1948 levels in the U.S. to today.
hoover.org/publications/digest/5955916.html

Total cropland in the U.S. is 445 million acres or about 1.5 acres per person. The U.S. is a large food exporter. About 10% of U.S. cropland is not being used due to governmental set aside programs. Total pastureland in the U.S. is 398 million acres or just a bit more than 1 acre per person. The U.S. is a large exporter of meat, and a large per capita consumer of meat, as we all know.
ers.usda.gov/statefacts/us.htm

Brazil alone can easily open up 420 million more acres of cropland and send food prices worldwide spiraling downward below profitability levels in the U.S.; a major concern to agriculture in all of North America.
cropchoice.com/leadstry5314.html?recid=2438

Worldwide statistics of available cropland and pastureland vary wildly. depending on the source. But it appears the potential Brazilian addition alone would increase worldwide cropland IN ACRES by approximately 25%. Of course, in Brazil one can harvest 3 crops of, say, soybeans per year versus one crop in the U.S., suggesting a 75% increase in potential worldwide row crop production from that source alone.

China is self sufficient in food production with .27 acres of cropland per person versus the 1.5 acres in the U.S. But China is not a big exporter, as is the U.S. and does not use row crops for things like biofuels and other non-food purposes on any kind of scale.

None of this takes into account the approximately 8.6 billion acres of pastureland worldwide, more, per capita, than there is in the meat-exporting U.S. by itself.

Of course, productivity is a big element in all of this. While this is a limited area of experience, pasture management practices in my part of the world have changed greatly in even the last 10 years, resulting in very large productive increases. As in all things, knowledge and management mean a lot.

Given that Zimbabwe, for example, has turned from a big net exporter of food to a big net importer, totally due to governmental mismanagement, there is no particular reason to think that mismanagement is not a much more imminent threat to nutrition than is population.

Unfortunately, this whole issue is fraught with ideology, and most information sources are either narrowly fragmented or very obviously ideologically biased. Suffice it for the moment to say that far and away most of the world is NOT starving, and those areas in which hunger is common are the worst-managed places on earth.

It should also be noted seriously that the greatest part of the world’s population is irrevocably headed toward a population implosion, not an explosion. Europe, North America, most of Latin America, and essentially all of Asia (far and away most of the world’s population) are facing inevitable declines because the birth rates are well below replacement rate. It may be noted that the population of Africa (where food is a problem in some places, though not all) is far less than that of Asia where food is not a problem generally, and that the amount of available crop and pastureland in both is about the same.

 

[flyingfish]

These are all opinion pieces, and this “global hectare” business is totally opinion. I’m not too impressed with Wikipedia either, since anybody can put anything on it. Here are some facts:

From 1950 to 1992, crop production went up 2.75 times in the U.S.
However, land used for crops decreased from 1948 levels in the U.S. to today.
hoover.org/publications/digest/5955916.html

Didn’t the Green Revolution happen in this time period? Can we expect another Green Revolution? The previous one came from massive use of fossil fuels/irrigation/genetically modified crops. Are we going to have a similar technological breakthrough that somehow does not depend at all on fossil fuels?

Of course, productivity is a big element in all of this. While this is a limited area of experience, pasture management practices in my part of the world have changed greatly in even the last 10 years, resulting in very large productive increases. As in all things, knowledge and management mean a lot.

To be the biggest element in all this is how it all depends on fossil fuels, which are running out. Oil will be nearly gone in 100 years, before that it will get really expensive.

No matter your ideology, you simply can’t disagree with the fact that fossil fuels will run out. As of today, we do not have a replacement. And it’s not just about energy sources to power machinery, it’s about fertilizer and pesticide without which high yield crops will not grow.

If today all fossil fuels vanished, we’d have to go to pre-Green Revolution farming (i.e. growing varieties that don’t need to be covered with fertilizer, pesticide, constantly irrigated etc.) that as far as I remember can feed at most 1-2 billion people.

Unfortunately, this whole issue is fraught with ideology, and most information sources are either narrowly fragmented or very obviously ideologically biased. Suffice it for the moment to say that far and away most of the world is NOT starving, and those areas in which hunger is common are the worst-managed places on earth.

Something I just don’t understand. Why is the issue of how many people the planet can support so polarizing?