Seeking for ways to refute arguments on population

[cho_pilo]

Below are the arguments of an engineer who is calling for population control.

i dont see the logic why so many people see the overpopulation problem. they argue that their is no overpopulation because vast lands are still uninhabited. as an Engineer, overpopulation is when there are more people than that can be comfortably supported. overpopulation happens due to the shortage of food,water,shelter,jobs,medical care, police protection… its not about the number of people or land area alone… it is about the capacities of places to support life in comfort.

overpopulation also destroys our environment… let say we move people to this uninhabited lands… there is basically no supply of fuel to cook food. then they would be forced to chop wood to cook… if the population grows, more wood needs to be chopped…

we also have to consider health and sanitation… health services and sewage/drainage systems can only support a fixed amount of people at one time… rapid growth of people taxes the capacity of our waste disposal systems… a landfill with a serviceable period of 20years can be full by just 7-11 years…

lets face it… philippines is in dire situations. it really has little in terms of money… (lets put aside the corruption issue). we need to take care of what we have right now…

theres also the problem of water shortage… as an engineer, i know there are lots of people consuming unclean water… we are depleting our aquifers… there are even places without access to potable water… (most deep wells arent really suitable for drinking)

there is a big difference between overcrowding and overpopulation… what the church is referring to is simply overcrowding… not the overpopulation problem…

why on earth should we listen about raising families to those who dont have biological offsprings of their own (declared)… if some of them have, its not like they are the ones actively raising them… why on earth should we listen about sex from those who are avoiding it… its like asking a blind man wat a color is…

we need to stop the population time bomb

im no polsci or liberal arts major. i say what is reflected by numbers… and what can be seen…

1.) all machines have maximum effeciency and in one moment in time will eventually cease to function, there is also wastage. there is no such thing as zero wastage and perfect effeciency… what you may be referring to is over-harvesting. yes you could do that. but it will strain the resource so much that it depletes faster that in could regenerate (ex. aquifers and forests), you are denying future generations that resource…

2.) it is true that with wealth, there is better goods, space, services, etc… it is merely a result of resource planning and utilization by these people or by generations before them. on the other hand, poverty is the result of lack of resource planning and huge wastage… (if your born poor, you can blame your parents for that)

3.) there is really an imbalance in the distribution of wealth… most of govt. programs are directed to benifit the poor. (i have no probs with that… thats good)

4.) there is a lack of technical jobs in many parts of the country. (its hard to get a capable carpenter in the provinces). human capital is not fully utilised. another example would be the huge surplus of nurses… manpower is really vital to economic progress, if it is qualified enough and in the right industries…

thats my arguments against yours with regards to realisim as my profession dictates.
as for my experience and some questions…

ive worked in construction and related fields and i know many of these laborers earn minimum income yet they have families of more than 3 children… it cannot be denied that having more children requires more resources to support… ive known many rich people and they prefer to have small families… i know that somewhere there is a problems… i have theories but im not qualified to discuss it in a scientific manner…

as for my political views on this and personal comment on your post:

each man to his own labor. it would be unfair to small families if larger families are given more priviledges… there would be unfair distribution of wealth… i believe in the free market where each man sows what he reaps… it is immoral to put the burden of your actions to somebody else…

there are hardworking people and there are lazy people… it would be injustice to reward them equally

What is the best way to refute these argumentations?

 

[fermat]

We don’t have a population problem, we have a resource management problem. Redirect the argument that direction.

Start with these two sites for further information:
overpopulationisamyth.com/
and
pop.org

They will give a lot of ammo to start with.

 

[st_lucy]

Here is a sight that has a series of videos that may help.

Here is a link to the youtube videos

 

[Erich]

The world’s population is 6,903,465,258.

The land area of France (for example) is 260,558 sq. mi.

That means you can fit the entire population of the world into an area the size of France, at a population density of just under 26,495 people per square mile. At 640 acres per square mile, that’s just over 41 people per acre (or an average family size of 4.7 people per 50’x100’ lot)

That’s not a particularly high population density. Like someone said earlier, that’s not a population problem, that’s a resource management/distribution problem.

 

[manualman]

Actually, there is a better way to refute him than either of the above.

Demographic data shows that ever since the dawn of the industrial era, urban family sizes have been very small compared to their rural counterparts. This was LONG before the era of contraception. We moderns are amazingly arrogant in our attitudes about people in the past. We think that because we have cars and jet planes that we are smart and they were morons. More like the opposite, actually. Moderns are so spoiled by the fruit of technology that we’ve forgotten how to observe the world around us and think for ourselves. It’s simply not all that hard to have a smaller family without use of contraception and history proves it.

The population growth on earth is almost ENTIRELY in the rural parts of the third world. But because pop alarmists like the OP quote don’t closely examine the data they fail to see that things are already trending towards self correction. Their proposed “solution” (childless couples and one child couples) is actually already in the process of destroying civilization (I’m not exagerrating). There is not one first world nation on earth with a native positive population trend right now. The ones that still trend upwards do so entirely on the back of immigrants.

More food for thought: there has NEVER been a civilization on earth that thrived when its native population fertility dropped below 2 kids per woman. Ever. Whenever that happens it has always correctly predicted civilizational decline.

Folks like him had better watch what they hope for.

 

[1ke]

amazon.com/War-Against-Population-Economics-Ideology/dp/0898707129

 

[cho_pilo]

Actually, there is a better way to refute him than either of the above.

Demographic data shows that ever since the dawn of the industrial era, urban family sizes have been very small compared to their rural counterparts. This was LONG before the era of contraception. We moderns are amazingly arrogant in our attitudes about people in the past. We think that because we have cars and jet planes that we are smart and they were morons. More like the opposite, actually. Moderns are so spoiled by the fruit of technology that we’ve forgotten how to observe the world around us and think for ourselves. It’s simply not all that hard to have a smaller family without use of contraception and history proves it.

The population growth on earth is almost ENTIRELY in the rural parts of the third world. But because pop alarmists like the OP quote don’t closely examine the data they fail to see that things are already trending towards self correction. Their proposed “solution” (childless couples and one child couples) is actually already in the process of destroying civilization (I’m not exagerrating). There is not one first world nation on earth with a native positive population trend right now. The ones that still trend upwards do so entirely on the back of immigrants.

More food for thought: there has NEVER been a civilization on earth that thrived when its native population fertility dropped below 2 kids per woman. Ever. Whenever that happens it has always correctly predicted civilizational decline.

Folks like him had better watch what they hope for.

I said that but he is trying to tweak the thruth. Here is his argument:

as for your argument:
in rural parts, it is indeed to the advantage of families to have more children as these children will be used as workers/helpers in the fields.

but here is the major flaw of that argument:
1.) these children will eventually grow up and will start families of their own. the land tilled must be expanded to accomodate the additional workers and to maintain worker effeciency. after the 2nd generation, land required becomes exponentially larger than the original.

2.)Land owned by the farmers is limited, so children who are not needed to work in the fields are sent to the cities to work. it is ok at first as there are plenty of simple jobs avialable (domestic helpers n unskilled labor)

3.) the birthrate of those within the cities plus the migration of those from rural areas increase population growth… those from rural areas are at a disadvantage as they are mostly unqualified for many specialized jobs in the cities.

4.) it is in the best interest of families in urban areas to keep small families as living expenses are high and its not like food grows on trees/plants here. and higher level education is crucial for jobs… (college is expensive).

5.) more children = more costs… its a no brainer… its financially easier to support 1 child than 2. as 2 is easier than 3 and so forth…

6.) technology makes life better. and in the sense of economy, makes costs of goods cheaper by cutting costs on overhead. and with low prices, its more competetive in the market.

7.) its is about the choice of couples to use whatever method of contraception they chose, whether be it condoms,pills,abstinence,etc…

uncontrolled population growth in the rural areas would mean

1.) forests must be cut down to provide land to till by new farmers.
2.) unneeded workers must go to the cities
3.) crude alternatives must be used in stead of unavailable resources
(ex… more fire wood must be chopped and used due to inavailability or high price of LPG.)

whether be it in rural or urban areas, uncontrolled and unplanned population growth have its inherent problems… the most obvious is the depletion of our natural resources due to overharvesting…

 

[manualman]

Again, simply point to history.

History proves that as a society industrializes, the population shifts drastically from primarily rural to primarily urban.

This is evident in ALL industrialized nations. Rural kids grow up and move to cities as the food production techniques become ever more efficient with industrialization. If every rural family in Italy had 5 kids and nothing changed in the urban areas, Italy as a whole would STILL today have a negative native population rate.

What folks like him don’t realize is that they are meddling in things that travel in the course of several decades. The inflection point has already been passed and the crisis Earth is facing is no longer indefinate population growth, but looming population collapse.

Now get out there and make some good catholic babies!

 

[Santi2]

I said that but he is trying to tweak the thruth. Here is his argument:

This fellow is perpetuating population myths which you can refute using the links provided by previous posters. I took the liberty to research social indicators for the Philippines and compared that with neighbouring countries in the SE Asia region like Indonesia and Taiwan since those two share nearly comparable statistics in terms of population density/land area which, judging by the economic growth of those two countries, shows that population growth is not the problem.

nationsonline.org/oneworld/Country-Stats/Philippines-statistics.htm (work your way around the site to compare stats.)

You could perhaps argue, where poverty and economics seems to be the strongest argument against you, that those are not caused by population growth at all but, by corruption. Even the Philippine President said so:

**“If no one is corrupt, no one will be poor.” **
transparencyintl.org/archives/inaugural_speech_aquino-6-30-2010.htm

Then offer the data from the Corruptions Perceptions Index of 178 countries where it shows that the Philippines ranks 134 and 8th on the Global Corruption Barometer.

transparencyintl.org/archives/cpi_2010.htm
transparencyintl.org/newsletter.htm

Then you can further support your argument with this excerpt from an article in one of the links provided by previous posters:

“We have something like 400 families owning 50% of our wealth. This is a disgrace. This is not even economically viable. And the bottom line is that 17% [of the population] owns 78% of the wealth and 83% end up owning 22%. This is a disgrace. This is not…human. It is absolutely exploitation.

Now, the government, of course, tries to disguise this, but it is so apparent. Any president [in the Philippines] can not win without these 400 families backing [him]. One wonders if the economic problem causes the political problem or vice versa. But it is certainly a syndrome that just keeps feeding on itself. I am afraid it is getting worse.”

pop.org/content/truth-in-the-phillipines-150

Hope that helps.

 

[acarlson]

We don’t have a population problem, we have a resource management problem. Redirect the argument that direction.

In my college Ecology class, we just covered this issue. Yes, we can’t continue to live at this rate. But we’re focusing on the population’s growth instead of realizing that we’re using STUFF at a completely insane rate!

 

[cho_pilo]

This fellow is perpetuating population myths which you can refute using the links provided by previous posters. I took the liberty to research social indicators for the Philippines and compared that with neighbouring countries in the SE Asia region like Indonesia and Taiwan since those two share nearly comparable statistics in terms of population density/land area which, judging by the economic growth of those two countries, shows that population growth is not the problem.

nationsonline.org/oneworld/Country-Stats/Philippines-statistics.htm (work your way around the site to compare stats.)

You could perhaps argue, where poverty and economics seems to be the strongest argument against you, that those are not caused by population growth at all but, by corruption. Even the Philippine President said so:

Then offer the data from the Corruptions Perceptions Index of 178 countries where it shows that the Philippines ranks 134 and 8th on the Global Corruption Barometer.

transparencyintl.org/archives/cpi_2010.htm
transparencyintl.org/newsletter.htm

Then you can further support your argument with this excerpt from an article in one of the links provided by previous posters:

Hope that helps.

Santi2,

I really appreciate your efforts. That level of support is above and beyond the normal, you deserve a gold medal.

I’d like to thank all for the great replies and links.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Below are the arguments of an engineer who is calling for population control.

What is the best way to refute these argumentations?

What country is this person from? Why not disclose this first? Or at least be careful enough to properly edit your OP so that everyone is on board with the rules and regs of that particular geographic area. Tell us what country we need to look at to examine the argument.

 

[StrawberryJam]

In my college Ecology class, we just covered this issue. Yes, we can’t continue to live at this rate. But we’re focusing on the population’s growth instead of realizing that we’re using STUFF at a completely insane rate!

Well, what would cause the using of stuff?

 

[Santi2]

What country is this person from? Why not disclose this first? Or at least be careful enough to properly edit your OP so that everyone is on board with the rules and regs of that particular geographic area. Tell us what country we need to look at to examine the argument.

You can lift that information from the quoted argument in post #1 which the OP wanted assistance on.

lets face it… **philippines is in dire situations.**it really has little in terms of money… (lets put aside the corruption issue). we need to take care of what we have right now…

theres also the problem of water shortage… as an engineer, i know there are lots of people consuming unclean water… we are depleting our aquifers… there are even places without access to potable water… (most deep wells arent really suitable for drinking)

there is a big difference between overcrowding and overpopulation… what the church is referring to is simply overcrowding… not the overpopulation problem…

 

[cho_pilo]

What country is this person from? Why not disclose this first? Or at least be careful enough to properly edit your OP so that everyone is on board with the rules and regs of that particular geographic area. Tell us what country we need to look at to examine the argument.

Thank you StrawberryJam.

That person is from the Philippines. I’d like to add some invitation and points in a revision of my opening post but I don’t have a way to do that. Perhaps a moderator can help.

 

[Santi2]

Santi2,

I really appreciate your efforts. That level of support is above and beyond the normal, you deserve a gold medal.

I’d like to thank all for the great replies and links.

You’re welcome.

 

[mrphilosophias]

plot wealth index of the most densely populated areas.
also wouldn’t it make sense that we would get exponentially increasing returns in a society with growing population&productivity?

lets chat; I think I can share some valuable insights including pointing you in the direction of Sir Julian Huxleys ‘The Coming Population Problem’ which is the UN’s rallying cry for population control, eugenics, bio-engineering, and Agenda 21

 

[cho_pilo]

lets chat; I think I can share some valuable insights including pointing you in the direction of Sir Julian Huxleys ‘The Coming Population Problem’ which is the UN’s rallying cry for population control, eugenics, bio-engineering, and Agenda 21

Please.

 

[Timothy17]

Please.

He is not kidding, and what he says can easily be substantiated. The UN has talking points just like any political organization, and they chant them regardless of the weight of evidence to the contrary. Global warming, population control, etc., are hardly demonstrable facts, and certainly don’t carry with them any unanimity. It therefore takes up an almost credal quality to it, based more on private, personal beliefs than objective facts. The UN faces the same temptations every human government does ; namely, using or producing crises to justify their existence or expand their scopes. A brief sweep through any period of history and you will find alarmists being the primary drivers for the expansion of government powers. The simple idea is to force action without the prerequisite contemplation, and thus by-pass reason.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[mrphilosophias]

He is not kidding, and what he says can easily be substantiated. The UN has talking points just like any political organization, and they chant them regardless of the weight of evidence to the contrary. Global warming, population control, etc., are hardly demonstrable facts, and certainly don’t carry with them any unanimity. It therefore takes up an almost credal quality to it, based more on private, personal beliefs than objective facts. The UN faces the same temptations every human government does ; namely, using or producing crises to justify their existence or expand their scopes. A brief sweep through any period of history and you will find alarmists being the primary drivers for the expansion of government powers. The simple idea is to force action without the prerequisite contemplation, and thus by-pass reason.

Pax Christi,
Tim

Glad to know there are others who are paying attention and thinking for themselves.