Proper Response to "Population Control"

[DamianaJo]

Hi everyone!

My name is Damiana and I am new to these forums. Well, sort-of. Often when I have a question regarding the Catholic Faith, my search takes me here. I hope that this forum will be a place to seek some more answers to questions I have regarding the defending of the faith, and provide a Catholic community for me, particularly while I am away from any semblance of Catholicism in my current situation.

I am a current student at an incredibly progressive and liberal college in northeastern Vermont. After having spent two years at a solid Catholic educational institution, I decided to continue my education at this college in the northeast because of my profound interest in agriculture. In any event, I am extremely frustrated with the lack of moral values in this place. On the one hand, I more or less expected that it would be this way, and because I am so close to graduation, I will not leave the school. Aside from the apparent lack of moral values and the horrible sinfulness promoted here, I am perpetually discouraged in a particular aspect of what is being taught within my classes. I am here seeking a degree in Forest Studies, so I have been taking core classes (such as ecology, environmental science, etc.) and many other natural science courses. While the actual information presented in these courses is almost always in line with what is actually happening in the world (often a major disregard of environmental resources for unnecessary personal gains), one continuous theme of “population control” continues to come up in each of my classes. Every professor preaches the need to have “one or none” when it comes to children. I realize that any attempt I make at trying to change their minds will probably be quite trivial, but I believe that it is important to express my beliefs in an articulate and non-argumentative manner. I did so in one class and things went well; however, in an upcoming class next week, we’ve been assigned this reading: docs.google.com/a/sterlingcollege.edu/file/d/0BxLIDnrq33B3RGhYVmdkTTdpazA/edit that absolutely blows my mind in its level of disregard for human life. Do any of you have any suggestions as to how I should go about defending my belief in humans as intended for dwelling on this great planet? Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!

Damiana

 

[Tzimisce]

Western society has a problem of lack of children.

Politicians have promised all kinds of future generations’ money to current generations to prop up the ever expanding welfare state.

And we’ve hit critical mass.

They’ve promised more than the next generation or two could ever hope to pay for.

And the biggest reason for this is no kids to loot and plunder.

A society built on slave labor needs slaves and we just don’t have any.

Consequentially, this is why they want to open the southern border: a ready made population of slaves who won’t ask questions.

 

[DamianaJo]

I should also note that the whole reason that these people believe that we need to stop having children is to save the environment, more or less. So this worldview is coming from an ecological perspective, apparently.

 

[JimG]

The world is already in the early stages of a de-population crisis. Fertility rates are insufficient to maintain the current population in most of Europe. “One or none” is a recipe for genocide through depopulation. The next grave crisis, other than the bankruptcy of social programs, will be declining populations and economic stagnation or depression as a result.

 

[underacloud]

I should also note that the whole reason that these people believe that we need to stop having children is to save the environment, more or less. So this worldview is coming from an ecological perspective, apparently.

Do they advocate stable population or shrinkage?

A “one or none” approach will lead to shrinkage. It’s basic maths. And as Tzimisce has addressed, it leads to economic catastrophy. I’d tackle it from that angle, rather than a religious angle, which I suspect your professors would dismiss out of hand.

Stable population still requires married couples to have at least two children on average (some will need to have more than two to offset people who don’t have any). It is not out of line with Church teaching to say that we need to be responsible in how many children we each have, and with our modern understanding of fertility, and more effective NFP, it is possible for faithful Catholic families to play a part in population control (if it is what is best, which is an open debate).

You could try to argue that the issue does not need to be framed in terms of reducing the number of people on the planet, but rather how mankind interacts with the environment and learns to live in harmony with it, rather than devouring it as needed. eg sustainable argiculture and forestry, green energy, etc

 

[DamianaJo]

Thank you all so much for your responses! They are all very helpful to me. Underacloud, I completely agree that coming at the issue from a religious angle will lead to automatic dismissal of anything I have to say, and in previous classes, I have used the interaction of mankind rather than reduction of human numbers; however, the suggestions presented regarding economics are particularly potent considering that the class in which I wish to present this information is an economics class. Again, I really appreciate you all taking the time to respond to this post. God bless you all, and happy St. Patrick’s Day!

 

[LittleDavid]

The world is already in the early stages of a de-population crisis. Fertility rates are insufficient to maintain the current population in most of Europe. “One or none” is a recipe for genocide through depopulation. The next grave crisis, other than the bankruptcy of social programs, will be declining populations and economic stagnation or depression as a result.

How, HOW, do you get that “the world is in the early stages of a de-population crisis”, when the world population numbers are:

3 Billion in 1959
4 Billion in 1974
5 Billion in 1987
6 Billion in 1999
7 Billion in 2011
7.149 Billion in 2013

 

[MaryT777]

Thank you all so much for your responses! They are all very helpful to me. Underacloud, I completely agree that coming at the issue from a religious angle will lead to automatic dismissal of anything I have to say, and in previous classes, I have used the interaction of mankind rather than reduction of human numbers; however, the suggestions presented regarding economics are particularly potent considering that the class in which I wish to present this information is an economics class. Again, I really appreciate you all taking the time to respond to this post. God bless you all, and happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Great question with thoughtful answers. Welcome to the forums!
:irish3:

 

[BettyBoop416]

How, HOW, do you get that “the world is in the early stages of a de-population crisis”, when the world population numbers are:

3 Billion in 1959
4 Billion in 1974
5 Billion in 1987
6 Billion in 1999
7 Billion in 2011
7.149 Billion in 2013

Watch it Dude. Folks around here don’t like to have their beliefs challenged by facts!

 

[Cojuanco]

How, HOW, do you get that “the world is in the early stages of a de-population crisis”, when the world population numbers are:

3 Billion in 1959
4 Billion in 1974
5 Billion in 1987
6 Billion in 1999
7 Billion in 2011
7.149 Billion in 2013

In the long term, if current trends continue, due to certain behaviors in the West (and more radically so in Red China) some of which are immoral and known to most in this conversation, the population is projected to stabilized at 9 billion for the optimist, and to decrease from that number if one is pessimistic. That sort of trend troubles policymakers even in the Global South, as similar trends manifest themselves as they industrialise.

Even supposing, arguendo, that it will continue to increase in the long term, however, one or none will inevitably lead to long-term shrinkage, which causes untold problem for sustaining modern government, particularly the welfare state, which requires a static or increasing population to function properly. The alternative would be the reduction of the intervention of the state to levels that previously only happened in the early nineteenth century. The ideal policy in such a scenario would be to promote “two or three” children, as on average this will replace the two parents and to a certain extent those who for some reason or another did not have children (for example Latin Rite priests, those in consecrated life, the infertile, those with SSA)

If it is necessary to control the increase of the population, Catholics must obviously not employ any immoral methods to do so, any more than we should solve the problem of urban crime by rounding up all the young men of a locality and locking them up until they reach the age of 25.

 

[Origen52]

Watch it Dude. Folks around here don’t like to have their beliefs challenged by facts!

When it comes to population control, Nancy Reagan said it best, “just say NO.”

I’m safe, that reply works for both sides.

 

[Petaro]

Never argue with an academic. Remember, they don’t respect your views nor want your opinions. These gods that walk amongst us are the wisdom of the ages personified, and simply demand you parrot the opinions of their latest book or academic paper. I realised early in my Uni. degree that my marks depended on my Marx and gave them what they wanted.
Don’t worry about proving your integrity, higher institutions of learning are not places of honour.
Get your degree and move on to a good job and family. Later when you are famous in your field is the time for polemics and debate.
The valuable thing to realise is that those that want one or none are logically doomed to die out like the Neanderthals they are.
Sorry for the pragmatism and cynicism, but your future is more important than a fruitless fight that may injure your prospects for really no moral gain.

 

[Cicero_NOLA]

OP

The Population Research Institute does a good job of condensing the facts into useful bits. They have a website (www.overpopulationisamyth.com) which has short cartoons dealing with everything from what Malthus thought to the looming demographic crash. They specifically address the “Ack! 7 billion is a big number and I’ve got a hunch the world is buckling under our weight!” Concern that was raised above.

I wouldn’t necessarily gear up for battle and stop everyone on campus to have it out over population control, but it’s good to have some of the more salient facts at your fingertips.

Did you know there are apparently 4 US cities where the abortion rate exceeds the birth rate? That in New York City 6 out of 10 black babies conceived are killed before they draw breath and that only one of the remaining 4 will be born into an intact family? You know how Japan went from a great economy to a 15-year slump? A big part of that is their aging (and shrinking) workforce. We could move everyone in the world to Texas and farm all the rest of the land if we wanted.

 

[Auntie_A]

Good luck to you in your schooling. I went back to school in my 40’s and faced similar issues, especially because my program was very science oriented. But I noticed that in science, even a population theory is just that: a theory. And in the scientific method, theories must be proven. So your beliefs are equal to anyone else’s until proven or not.

The interesting thing I noticed in the college science class viewpoint is that every animal and every thing seems to be considered a part of nature, a very sensitive ecosystem, and then suddenly humans enter the picture and we are expected to destroy ourselves, our habitat, our offspring, our nature. In many academic settings, the premise is that Western man has been destructive (probably, in many minds, “due to Judaeo-Christian culture” since we are always good for a swipe) and therefore needs to destroy himself to survive.

As I understand in the Catholic belief we are stewards of the earth. Yes, we have the capability to destroy but we also have the ability to create. We have the ability to be selfish or to share, to follow our human nature wantonly or to use a bit of self-restraint. To lose or to find ourselves. To serve the natural world but avoid dominating. We must balance.

And we must be loyal to ourselves as a species. How sad that many young people are afraid to bear children because they “don’t want to bring children into such an awful world.” How many of such children might have the talent to find answers to world or local problems? Why is the Western world now so committed to annihilating themselves population-wise? What other generation has ever been so un-natural? And also look at what has happened to the female population in China and other countries where people now use “selection” (abortion) after learning the sex of their pre-born child. Perhaps it’s time to stop population “control” and seek fertility and population sanity and awareness.

 

[RPRPsych]

Never argue with an academic. Remember, they don’t respect your views nor want your opinions. These gods that walk amongst us are the wisdom of the ages personified, and simply demand you parrot the opinions of their latest book or academic paper. I realised early in my Uni. degree that my marks depended on my Marx and gave them what they wanted.
Don’t worry about proving your integrity, higher institutions of learning are not places of honour.
Get your degree and move on to a good job and family. Later when you are famous in your field is the time for polemics and debate.
The valuable thing to realise is that those that want one or none are logically doomed to die out like the Neanderthals they are.
Sorry for the pragmatism and cynicism, but your future is more important than a fruitless fight that may injure your prospects for really no moral gain.

Very true, that.

 

[Nelka]

Ban abortion.

 

[JimG]

Population growth has a momentum. Even in the face of globally declining fertility rates, it will continue to increase for several more decades. The declining fertility rates, however, are already affecting Europe and the U.S., and having an impact on continued economic stagnation. Once begun, population decline will have a momentum in the opposite direction. We can worry about increasing population if we like, but the declining fertility rates indicate the problem is reversing. Declining fertility rates will hurt the economy, cause larger deficits, make social security and medicare unsustainable. The next big problem will be that of declining populations due to fertility rates below replacement level.

Fertility Decline in Western Europe
pop.org/content/fertility-decline-in-western-europe-1727

America’s Baby Bust
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718

Baby Bust: U.S. Birth Rates at Record Low
money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/

 

[Bookcat]

pop.org/

 

[manualman]

You don’t really argue to convince such people on global population. They have an underlying view of the world and of mankind that has to be changed first. You CAN defend yourself against criticism, just don’t expect to change their minds.

The only place on earth where people are having more babies than bare replacement rate is the third world. The only stable industrialized country on the planet with a total fertility rate significantly above replacement level is Israel (and that’s an anomaly based on a demographic war going on there where each side is attempting out outpopulate the other).

In an academic discussion, all you really need to know is the generally accepted theory in the field of demographics called "Demographic Transition Theory. Look it up. It posits that there are three major stages of demographic behavior:

1. Primitive rural societies: High fertility, high mortality, very low population growth rates.
2. Transitional societies: High fertility, low mortality, very high population growth rates.
3. Mature industrialized societies: low fertility rates, low mortality, very low population growth rates.

The above is based on the historical record and the theory explaining it holds that Stage 1 societies have lots of babies because more people means more productive farm hands. But the primitive sanitation, unreliable food production and poor medical care leads to high mortality rates, so population doesn’t climb much.

Stage 2: As societies urbanize, adopt sanitation practices, apply science to agriculture and cultivate learning (including medical science), mortality rates begin to drop. This drop occurred slowly when such technologies were slow to develop early in the industrial revolution, but has occurred MUCH faster as knowledge has been exported to third world countries in modern times. For a while, the embedded culture continues to nudge such peoples towards large families. But as the society becomes more industrial and a much smaller portion of the population engages in agriculture a funny thing happens. The economics of society swing from having kids be a productive contributor to family economics to kids being an economic burden on families (expensive rugrats!). As a result, transitional societies eventually become Stage 3.

In Stage 3 there is very low mortality rates and long life expectancies. It surprises many to learn that Stage 3 societies long predate modern contraception or abortion. Urban Europe reached this stage in the latter 1800’s and it’s urban population had babies at about the replacement rate (TFR=2.1). European population growth from this point on was almost solely in the rural areas. The reason for these lower TFRs vary, including much later age at marriage, longer education times, steadily increasing costs of raising children. Arguably, 19th century Europeans used primitive contraception to achieve smaller families (catholics would call it Onanism), but the bottom line appears to be one in which Stage 3 countries do NOT naturally have significant population growth rates (even without irritating professors preaching the “VHEMT message”).

All the above is based on widely accepted secular demographic principles that no professor can reasonably refute. Catholics can defend our rational policies by pointing out that in the long run, it is MUCH more beneficial to expend our efforts by speeding the transition of third world countries to Stage 3 via education and economic assistance than to throw pills and condoms at them and hope they just stay impoverished on THEIR side of the world and not bother us. (Current status quo among “the beautiful people,” in my opinion).

It’s my PERSONAL contention that this demographic transition is a natural process that reflects God’s beneficial designs built into the human person. It’s also my personal opinion that the widespread acceptance of contraception and cheap availability of it are chiefly responsible for the BELOW replacement TFR in the developed world today. The demography profession seems determined to ignore the issue and continues to assume that developed country TFRs will return to around 2.1 after a time period, but there is no real evidence or rationale to support that decision other than that it makes their calculations and models look good. I’m not a professional demographer, so take my opinion on that last one with a grain of salt!

But remember that in the end, your goal is to demonstrate the reasonableness of your position, not to convince him. We really don’t WANT to convince beatnik leftover professors to have more kids, do we?

 

[Cojuanco]

Very true, that.

This is not true in my experience. They tend to appreciate well reasoned critiqhes even if they ultimately disagree. It’s your fellwo students that tend to be stupidly fanatical.