So what about overpopulation?

[Contarini]

Underpopulation affects more than just one race. It affects any region that reaches a below replacement level birthrate. A number of nations are already there. %between%

But as you say, immigration will make up for this.

If we do get to the point where the world population starts shrinking, there will be time enough to worry. I’m sure at that point people will start having more kids. Procreation is a natural human impulse. It takes a lot of effort to limit it.

Even in Europe, it’s not as if people are having no kids. Even if the population were to shrink, what would be the harm in that?

Edwin

 

[luvmykids]

Sadly what most people don’t understand is that the creative persons made more of the needed resource available, by converting other available/(previously unavailable) resources. You can’t make matter!!! If you can please tell me, please. Just tell me how to make something out of nothing. Energy, is something so don’t even go there. Make something out of nothing THEN I will support the whole have large families thing. Second, I don’t think God will bail us out on something we know is coming.

Yes, matter cannot be created, but nor can it be destroyed. You don’t just keep losing matter until it is all gone.

Again, I do not think that overpopulation is the problem…but greed and selfishness and Godlessness ARE the problem!

I would suggest having faith in God, (something very unpopular in this world, I know) and not try to take control of humanity, by deciding we should just stop procreating. The bible says that children are a blessing…are they not a blessing anymore?

Maybe some of the children that we are not having could have helped us with ideas on how to provide or renew the resources we have, but those children don’t or won’t exist.

 

[JimG]

But as you say, immigration will make up for this.

If we do get to the point where the world population starts shrinking, there will be time enough to worry. I’m sure at that point people will start having more kids. Procreation is a natural human impulse. It takes a lot of effort to limit it.

Even in Europe, it’s not as if people are having no kids. Even if the population were to shrink, what would be the harm in that?

Edwin

And yet, in places like Russia, procreation is on the decline and abortion has increased dramatically. I do not think that population decline, once begun, is easy to reverse. And population decline means an aging society. And a society with few children and many elderly becomes less and less sustainable.

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Matter can’t be destroyed, but if humans ended up using it all then… use your imagination.
Sure the bible says procreate, but it never said procreate to your destruction. A lot of people usually equals some crate catastrophy. Some crazy war over resources, I am willing to bet alot of wars over resources will start if the world population keeps increasing.

 

[redhen]

Matter can’t be destroyed, but if humans ended up using it all then… use your imagination.
Sure the bible says procreate, but it never said procreate to your destruction.

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits”

un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940909224555.html

"As indicated on the attachments, the quantity and caliber of signatories to this statement is quite unprecedented:

• 104 scientists who have been awarded the Nobel Prize;
• a majority of the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "

 

[Brooklyn]

Yes, matter cannot be created, but nor can it be destroyed. You don’t just keep losing matter until it is all gone.

Again, I do not think that overpopulation is the problem…but greed and selfishness and Godlessness ARE the problem!

I would suggest having faith in God, (something very unpopular in this world, I know) and not try to take control of humanity, by deciding we should just stop procreating. The bible says that children are a blessing…are they not a blessing anymore?

Maybe some of the children that we are not having could have helped us with ideas on how to provide or renew the resources we have, but those children don’t or won’t exist.

Excellent post. People seem to have forgotten that earth was created for man, not man for the earth. Countries like Russia and Japan are now very concerned because they don’t have enough people to replace those who are dying and their populations are actually shrinking.

Man is God’s ultimate creation. God made man to become members of his family and he actually sent His Son to die for us to make that possible. The truth is there can never be too many people. The fact that there is too much poverty in the world and people dying of starvation is not because of overpopulation but because of man’s greed. Read the latest encyclical. This whole myth of overpopulation is satanic. Satan wants to eliminate as many people as possible. He hates mankind because God loves them. Those of you buying into population control are buying into a satanic lie.

 

[redhen]

Countries like Russia and Japan are now very concerned because they don’t have enough people to replace those who are dying and their populations are actually shrinking.

“Countries” are not concerned with anything. Countries don’t have opinions. I suspect what you mean is “politicians, economists and land developers” are concerned with a sub-replacement population growth. These people are considering their own narrow agenda and careers.

The truth is there can never be too many people.

Sorry, there are finite limits to growth.

The fact that there is too much poverty in the world and people dying of starvation is not because of overpopulation but because of man’s greed.

How so? How does this address the finite resources of the planet?

Read the latest encyclical. This whole myth of overpopulation is satanic. Satan wants to eliminate as many people as possible. He hates mankind because God loves them. Those of you buying into population control are buying into a satanic lie.

“44. The notion of rights and duties in development must also take account of the problems associated with population growth.”

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Apparently the Pope thinks there are problems associated with population growth.

I don’t know what Satan’s views are on human overpopulation. Perhaps he will hold a press conference and inform us.

 

[luvmykids]

hmmmmmm…maybe you should read the next sentence and all the sentences after that in the document you just quoted. Here, I’ll just quote a few,“To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view. Suffice it to consider, on the one hand, the significant reduction in infant mortality and the rise in average life expectancy found in economically developed countries, and on the other hand, the signs of crisis observable in societies that are registering an alarming decline in their birth rate… It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control… Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness.”

Where there is life there is hope. Again, I say the problems in this world are not due to too many people…they are due to primarily Godlessness, selfishness, greediness, and politics.

 

[luvmykids]

Oh, and I can tell you with all certainty who is on the side of life (God) and who is on the anti-life side(Satan).

 

[Brooklyn]

It’s interesting that Mother Teresa, who worked with the poorest of the poor and saw poverty that we can’t even imagine, never talked about over population as a problem. In fact she said that the killing of our children, abortion which is often used for population control, is the greatest evil of our time.

So those of you who advocate population control, do you think it would be better for the world if you and your family weren’t here using all of the earth’s “precious resources.”. Or is it just other people who don’t have a right to life.

 

[redhen]

hmmmmmm…maybe you should read the next sentence and all the sentences after that in the document you just quoted.

You got me. I cherry picked that statement because I didn’t want to go off on an tangent on that encyclical.

Here, I’ll just quote a few,"To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view.

My concern is with the earth’s finite resources, not economics.

Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people.

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies.

Or maybe it’s attributable to the mass exodus of citizens of the former Warsaw Pact countries?

The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs.

Assuming that all the people born recently grow up to contribute to these social safety nets, and not just add to these strained systems.

Where there is life there is hope. Again, I say the problems in this world are not due to too many people…they are due to primarily Godlessness, selfishness, greediness, and politics.

Let’s put *the problems in this world * aside for a moment. Let me ask if you agree that the earth’s resources (mineral, vegetable, animal) are limited?

 

[redhen]

So those of you who advocate population control, do you think it would be better for the world if you and your family weren’t here using all of the earth’s “precious resources.”. Or is it just other people who don’t have a right to life.

What people don’t have a right to life? I never made any such statement. I certainly don’t advocate killing people as a method to address human overpopulation.

Abortion and infanticide are not used as a population control in any country I know of. They seem to be used for personal or cultural reasons. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952600/

 

[luvmykids]

My concern is with the earth’s finite resources, not economics.

God knew us before we were born…yet He made this earth with only enough resources for SOME of us, knowing that we cannot create something out of nothing?

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution.

I don’t read wiki…it’s not a credible resource.

Assuming that all the people born recently grow up to contribute to these social safety nets, and not just add to these strained systems.?

Well, yes and that’s my point…this is what we should be doing…and lots of us are not, hence the problem. (selfishness, greed, Godlessness…The answer is not population control, because there are not enough of us that are contributing.) you are implying that our lives are only worth what we materially contribute to society.

Let’s put *the problems in this world * aside for a moment. Let me ask if you agree that the earth’s resources (mineral, vegetable, animal) are limited?

Let’s put it this way…I do not believe that we should be trying to control humanity, by beginning to use population control methods. Whether or not you believe that the earth is limited, has nothing to do with the fact that God created this world for us…He created all of us. Without Him we would not exist. Do you think he would make us and not provide a way for us to survive? There are ways, we are just too selfish and greedy. No, I do not believe that the world does not contain enough resources for us to keep procreating. I believe where there is life there is hope and that God will provide. We need to use what God provides to care for one another. WE are not doing that. There is a lot you don’t know, as only God is all knowing and He sees the big picture. We are not living here in this world with an uninterested God.

Let me ask you these questions,

Do you believe that human life has no value if it suffers?

Do you believe that our lives are eternal?

Do you believe that God is the author of human life?

Do you believe that you should never have existed?

Do you know with all certainty that there is no hope in the future for us to find ways to renew our resources or find new ones and what will happen in the future if we stop procreating?

Do you believe there is no hope?

Without life there IS no hope.

 

[Brooklyn]

What people don’t have a right to life? I never made any such statement. I certainly don’t advocate killing people as a method to address human overpopulation.

Abortion and infanticide are not used as a population control in any country I know of. They seem to be used for personal or cultural reasons. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952600/

I guess you never heard of China, where forced abortion is a way of life.

eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap15.html

In 1985, The Washington Post ran a three-part series (January 6-8) on China’s brutal policy. Michael Weisskopf reported, “Any mother who becomes pregnant again without receiving official authorization after having one child is required to have an abortion, and the incidence of such operations is stunning — 53 million from 1979 to 1984, according to the Ministry of Public Health — a five-year abortion count approximately equal to the population of France.”

The UN constantly pushes abortion onto countries, calling it population control:

euthanasia.com/un3.html

UN OK’s Abortion and Population Control Proposals

UNITED NATIONS – July, 1999 – The U.N. General Assembly adopted new proposals Friday to curb the world’s population growth - including calls for greater “access” to abortion.

The plan was approved despite reservations from several pro-life countries and the Vatican.

But pro-abortion groups praised the agreement, calling it a giant advance beyond what was agreed to at the landmark 1994 U.N. population conference in Cairo.

There is nothing more precious than human life in all the universe. I know you don’t believe it because you don’t believe in God. Therefore, you think that a human life is no more precious than that of an ant. But every baby is a precious gift from God. To think that human life is a scourge on the earth that must be curbed is nothing less than evil.

I ask again - whose life is it that must be eradicated from this earth? Is is okay for you to be here but other people don’t have a right to life?

I think you are sincere in your beliefs that human life needs to be curbed in order to save the planet. But you have it completely backwards and upside down. I truly hope that you will come to see how wrong you are.

Mary

 

[Secret_Square]

Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that overpopulation really IS a problem. Even if that were the case, it would NOT require forced abortion or contraception or require every couple to limit themselves to two children or less. In many ways the “population problem” is self-correcting and does not require drastic intervention, for reasons that will be explained below.

First of all, the so-called “replacement level” of 2 children per woman is merely a statistical average for developed nations, which assumes each child living to adulthood. To maintain an absolutely stable population, some couples have to have MORE than 2 children to compensate for those who have only one child or none at all, or those whose children die young. In nations with a high infant/child mortality rate or lower life expectancy, replacement level fertility must be higher. In places like sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, or Bangladesh, a woman could have 5 or 6 or 7 children and only see 2 or 3 of them make it to adulthood.

Also, scientists and demographers agree that the most effective way to slow down population growth – far more effective than pushing birth control on people who don’t want it – is simply to increase educational and job opportunities for women so they wait longer to marry and start families. You don’t raise a nation’s standard of living by forcibly lowering the birth rate; what actually happens in practice is that as a nation’s standard of living rises, the birth rate goes down WITHOUT any government intervention.

Some people assume that Catholic teachings about sexuality are to blame for overpopulation. Well, I’m not so sure about that. For one thing, if more people followed Catholic teaching about refraining from sex outside of marriage, there would be far fewer births out of wedlock, and that alone would put a pretty big dent in population growth.

Also, natural family planning is always an option, as well as ecological breastfeeding, which has been shown in MANY scientific and historical studies to be effective in spacing births about 2 or 3 years apart. The phenomenon of women having babies every year and ending up with 12 or 15 or more children is usually seen only among women who do not breastfeed, either because they physically are unable to, or because they have been persuaded that bottlefeeding is healthier or more hygenic.

Some years ago (late 1990s) a study was done in China of more than 600 couples using natural family planning. In this study the method was 99 percent effective and many couples continued to use it even though the government offered them incentives such as extra days off work for agreeing to use IUDs or be sterilized. These were not Christian couples participating in the study, by the way. They used NFP for one reason and one reason alone – it worked without any side effects.

 

[4everjustjesus]

At the density of New York City, the entire population of the world could live in Texas. If everyone lived in families of 4 on 1/4-acre lots, the entire population of the world could fit in Alaska.

Alaska is 663,000 square miles, the 6 habitable continents together have 52,000,000 square miles, which means that Alaska has 1.3% of the land, so the world’s population could fit in 1.3% of the land.

So I have to ask, what overpopulation problem?

You go girl!

God Bless,
4everjustjesus a.k.a. previous homeschooler!

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Steve Mosher is an expert in the area of population of the world. He is also a Catholic
convert (due in large part to how he saw the wisdom of the Church’s teaching in this
area). I have not read his books but I have seen him on tv being interviewed. Might
check out what he writes.
Going back 50-60 years ago (sigh, I know I remember even though I was a child.) the
population control people were touting that the population explosion that was to occur
in 50 years would doom the world. The time has come and gone and the population
was far less than they predicted. Now they are coming at us again with the same
doom and gloom…
Because of politics, culture, greed, etc. certain conditions exist that deny humans
basic essentials of life. Certain populations are vegetarians but allow cattle to eat the
crops because of certain beliefs in reincarnation. Monies sent to communities to
help build housing, wells or the like are kept by corrupt politicians. Those are problems
that need to be addressed. In my opinion, the UN is a huge part of the problem.
As to the availability of resources, yes, there are solutions. Water, for example, may
not be inexpensive,but will be available. When the decision to locate the largest
army base here in El Paso, the available water supply was looked at very carefully.
El Paso has a huge basin of salt water underground, so a huge desaltization plant was
built for the community. Not inexpensive to be sure, but very workable. Also the process
has provided information to other communities on solving such problems. I believe
that the ingenuity and resourcefulness of man (coming from his Creator) can provide
other solutions as well.
When we look at today’s problems, I believe it is a lack of population that has caused
a huge one. How many service businesses are having problems staffing because all
they can find are people wanting the money, but lacking in skills for caring for the
elderly? Empathy can’t really be taught. There are few who have natural vocations for
this and it shows. We’ve aborted nurses,doctors, scientists,presidents, etc. We’ve
aborted children who would have grown up to care for elderly parents, whose wages
would have funded SS and solved a host of other ills in our society.

 

[redhen]

Let me ask you these questions,

Do you believe that human life has no value if it suffers?

All life (including non-human animals) have intrinsic value.

Do you believe that our lives are eternal?

I have seen no evidence to suggest so.

Do you believe that God is the author of human life?

Don’t know, hence agnostic.

Do you believe that you should never have existed?

That question doesn’t make sense.

Do you know with all certainty that there is no hope in the future for us to find ways to renew our resources or find new ones and what will happen in the future if we stop procreating?

If we find ways to exponentially increase food production, it will only lead to exponential human population growth. Same thing happened in the 1960’s with the Green revolution.

Do you believe there is no hope?

Malthusian traps will see to it that human overpopulation corrects itself.

 

[WillieWonka]

At the density of New York City, the entire population of the world could live in Texas. If everyone lived in families of 4 on 1/4-acre lots, the entire population of the world could fit in Alaska.

Alaska is 663,000 square miles, the 6 habitable continents together have 52,000,000 square miles, which means that Alaska has 1.3% of the land, so the world’s population could fit in 1.3% of the land.

So I have to ask, what overpopulation problem?

I agree. After the first winter in Alaska, there would definitely not be an overpopulation problem.

 

[Contarini]

So those of you who advocate population control, do you think it would be better for the world if you and your family weren’t here using all of the earth’s “precious resources.”. Or is it just other people who don’t have a right to life.

It’s a logical fallacy to speak of the right to life of those who do not exist. Follow this line of reasoning and you wind up with unbearable absurdity. I would have to see the life of my real daughter as in competition with all the other children I might have had if the genes had combined in slightly different ways. You can’t follow this through consistently, so you apply it selectively to condemn those who choose not to conceive as many children as they are capable of. And even there, you can’t really push it that far. If not conceiving a child constitutes somehow denying that “child” life, then we would be obligated to try our best to conceive a new child as soon as the one was born. Indeed, Catholic objections to artificial methods of having children would make no sense–it would be our duty to find ways to bring embryos to term outside their mother’s wombs so that as many lives could be saved as possible. There’s no end to the absurdity entailed in this position.

Furthermore, it damages the prolife cause immensely, because it undercuts the claim that life begins at conception.

Before conception there is no being that can have a right to life. There is no life to respect or preserve or appreciate. There are just sperm and egg, parts of the parents’ bodies. After conception there is a unique human life in existence, which was not there before.

Now tell me: is that not a prolife position?

Edwin