Population vs Machines

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pag_Hingowa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pag_Hingowa

Guest
Please refute the following argument on necessity of birth control:

Some people argue on economics and unemployment behind machines. As we progress and gain new technology, jobs become obsolete. If you can’t adapt, you fail. As we need fewer and fewer workers it becomes harder and harder to compete for the
remaining jobs. Think of how much computers contribute to the globalization of industry and economy. With that increased complexity, jobs are created less in the labor field. It takes far fewer people to maintain a machine than the number of people whose productivity it replaces. For now we still need a few people but it’s decreasing and will continue to do so.

Thanks in advance!
 
That’s not really an argument for birth control. It’s a good argument that some jobs will, over time become obsolete. But this only means that there will be new opportunity and scope for employment in the sectors which new technology opens up. It also means that self-employment becomes increasingly important.

Computers will always need maintainence and (name removed by moderator)ut from humans.

This argument is actually a pretty good argument that because of modern advances in technology people could be freed up to take care of larger families and working in the home etc…
 
Which is the lesser of two evils—to bring undernourished children into the world for whom you cannot provide, or to practice contraception?

To bring children into the world and not to be able to provide for them is easily the lesser of the two evils. Better any temporal trials than sin by breaking God’s law. But you have no certainty that you will be unable to provide for the children God sends, or that they will be undernourished. There is such a thing as Divine Providence, above all for those who are faithful to Him. In fact God has a special Providence for large families. At best you are but making a conjecture which may never be realized; yet you talk of violating a certain obligation by contraceptive practices because of merely possible contingencies; contingencies which, even did they eventuate, could not excuse such conduct. But there is another alternative, involving discomfort to self, I know, but less than either of the two you mention. It is self-denial. You speak as if one had to choose either of your two alternatives. He need not. Mutual self-restraint is lawful. Anyway, if people do use their privileges, God absolutely forbids contraception. Nor will He send a mouth He cannot fill. Even it it meant poverty; even if an orphanage had to take care of me, I would prefer to be born and have my chance of eternal happiness with God. And I certainly thank God that, when it was my turn to come, my own mother did not say, "No more.’’
 
Do you say that all large families are sufficiently provided for?

If they were not, that would not justify birth-control. The end does not justify the means. However I do not deny that individual cases of extreme poverty occur where there happens to be large families. But they occur also where there are not large families. I deny however that parents cannot normally support the children which will result from their marriage if God’s laws are observed. Because some large families suffer poverty, it does not follow that every man who has a large family can expect similar poverty. A lot of men’s trials are those which never happen! I admit that many children mean difficulty, self-sacrifice, and real service of God. But as a rule the difficulties are confined to the early stages of married life, when youth is able to bear them. As the children grow up, begin to earn and bring in revenue, conditions are bettered, and the later years of husband and wife are doubly blest.
 
A higher standard of life and education is demanded to-day than in medieval times, and one can’t do it with a large family?

That could not justify birth-control by contraceptive methods. The choice to-day is between Christ and the modern pagan philosophy. If modern godless civilization is right, and this life is all, then let us measure everything by utility and pleasure. If Christ is right, and the beatitudes, directed against worldly wisdom, are the road to eternal happiness, then a small family cannot be had if it means sin and the re-crucifixion of Christ in the name of sensuality. And is not the higher standard of living based on discontent with the necessities of life, and upon the desire to possess as many superfluous and pleasurable goods as possible? A man who is not content with Christian simplicity of life will lack what he considers fitting means to support children. His preference is for temporal comfort. The idea of providing Christ with little children to redeem, who may share a happiness he himself hopes to enjoy for all eternity has little appeal for him. “The animal man,” says St. Paul, “does not perceive the things which are of the spirit of God.” And remember that many of the greatest geniuses in the world have come from large but poor families, whilst men whose parents spent vast sums on their education, have been failures. A child brought up without luxury is more energetic, more resourceful, and, if encouraged, can quite well make good in the world. Normally, it is good to give children a higher and a secondary, or even a university education, although they are not always the better for it. Character is the true education, and that is much better attained in a large family than in any other circumstances. The father and mother of a large family have more lovable qualities than those who restrict their families, and communicate their characteristics to a larger number of children who will glorify God and edify their fellow men.
 
AdamPeter said:
That’s not really an argument for birth control. It’s a good argument that some jobs will, over time become obsolete. But this only means that there will be new opportunity and scope for employment in the sectors which new technology opens up. It also means that self-employment becomes increasingly important.

Computers will always need maintainence and (name removed by moderator)ut from humans.

This argument is actually a pretty good argument that because of modern advances in technology people could be freed up to take care of larger families and working in the home etc…
Click to expand...
^This. 🙂
 
Pag_Hingowa said:
Please refute the following argument on necessity of birth control:

Some people argue on economics and unemployment behind machines. As we progress and gain new technology, jobs become obsolete. If you can’t adapt, you fail. As we need fewer and fewer workers it becomes harder and harder to compete for the
remaining jobs. Think of how much computers contribute to the globalization of industry and economy. With that increased complexity, jobs are created less in the labor field. It takes far fewer people to maintain a machine than the number of people whose productivity it replaces. For now we still need a few people but it’s decreasing and will continue to do so.

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Birth control still isn’t necessary. NFP can space a family, so that someone doesn’t have 8 anyway, if necessary because of finances or something. Things also balance themselves out (1 family of 8 balances out the couple with 1 child because they can conceive. Then you have the couple who can’t conceive at all and adopts.)
 
Here is an article on the Theory of Demographic Cycles. I’m not saying this should be accepted at face value, but it is the prevalent model for populations before the industrial revolution.

escholarship.org/uc/item/8qf580j5#page-1

This is the scholarly thinking of many of those justifying all forms of population control.

In the conclusion of the above paper is that the industrial revolution, technology, etc. has greatly increased the level where food becomes scarce & expensive and war, epidemic, or other upheaval decimates the population, but the fear remains that eventually it will be reached and to their minds the best viable human solution is artificial means of lowering or stopping the growth of the world population.

With regard to machines, and technology this is the fruit of great work that has only done well to extend life, populations, and economic stability. Even in the dooms day modeler’s minds this has done much more good than bad in delaying the next upheaval. Machines may cause changes in job descriptions, but as people have come available to work more work has been found. Bouts of unemployment and sudden shortages of raw materials are mostly due to unscrupulous practices or political interference in the market place.

The best informational approach to quelling fear of population growth may be to formulate and show that the population “limit” is continuing to grow much faster than the population could grow even without artificial methods including abortion and the one child policy of China. I’d like to see any work found to this affect or if there are better theories to replace the Malthus population growth limit theories explained in the linked article.
 
Here’s my population control theory. Why limit the married people to only a child or two? If every single unmarried person practiced abstinence, there would be less children born out of wedlock and an overall lower population.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Here’s my population control theory. Why limit the married people to only a child or two? If every single unmarried person practiced abstinence, there would be less children born out of wedlock and an overall lower population.
Click to expand...
Well done
 
Well somebody has to run skynet;)
I detest the idea that technology and machines are somehow evil. You are correct, there are no more wagon builders, wheel fixers, and yoke makers. Instead, we now have the auto industry, mechanics, and farmers. More people= more customers for things that machines just cant do. And for anyone who has ever called a support desk, there are many needs not being met by machines!
 
Machines have been replacing man in various jobs on a fairly large scale for something over 100 - 150 years now…Bascially since the advent of the steam engine allowed for widespread mechanization and industrialization…
And for this same period of time, this argument has been put forth in one form or another…to justify, population control, tariffs, protection of jobs by unions…(I recall in one case the UAW forced the Automakers to pay union dues on the robotic welders they installed)…but I digress…

The fact is that - this “Population vs machines” argument has been disproven by 100 years of evidence We use more machines today - AND the population is significantly larger than when this argument was first proposed…

Peace
James
 
I detest the whole overpopulation argument.

In short, it’s a farcical attempt by pro-abortion and pro-contraception racists to reduce populations of third world countries by shipping mass quantities of birth control agents over in the form of “Sex-education” and “Aids Prevention” programmes. This is a disgusting and dehumanising move on the part of world governments and behind it are pro-eugenics abortion giants Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes.

The total human population and human activity on this planet takes up less than 5% of the land surface area. Thats all towns, cities, farming, forestry, roads, mining etc…Everything we do.

We could cram the total population of the Earth into the state of Texas with room to spare. This would be with a population density of New York City.

treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/at-nycs-density-the-worlds-population-could-live-in-texas.html

Overpopulation is a myth. There is plenty of space left on the Earth.
 
JRKH said:
The fact is that - this “Population vs machines” argument has been disproven by 100 years of evidence We use more machines today - AND the population is significantly larger than when this argument was first proposed…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Maybe not machines but over economic development versus population is the useful relationship. In the modern, economically developed countries yes there is initial population growth that accompanies prosperity but then a leveling off or even decline of population occurs, esp in countries with limited imigration rates like Japan. 🤷
 
Then there are positive developments like vertical farming. Growing crops in multistory buildings. There needs to be much more work done on supplying plants nutrients so hydroponic style farming can produce more nutritious produce and grains, but there is a bright future if we devote our research in the right places.

science1.knoji.com/vertical-farming/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top