So what about overpopulation?

[Contarini]

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?

The world has finite resources. That’s undeniable.

God has a long track record of not saving people from the consequences of their folly. That is not to say that He never so intervenes, but He usually does not do so.

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.

That’s a vague term. Some “population control methods” are downright wicked (abortion), or morally dubious (artificial contraception, which I believe is not intrinsically evil but should not be embraced uncritically). Others are morally indifferent (late marriage, if it does not promote unchastity, which admittedly it often does; spacing births by natural means). Others are downright virtuous (adoption, for instance–I recognize that you may not see this as a population control method, but in some cases it may be a substitute for having one’s own children).

Whether or not you believe that the earth is limited,

That the earth is limited is pretty obvious. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the earth–a rough sphere about 8,000 miles in diameter and 25,000 miles in circumference.

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?

God made us through human agency. Invoking divine agency to abdicate our responsibility is not a sound approach in any respect.

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

Of course not. But I don’t think human suffering should be caused (unless absolutely necessary for some legitimate reason) or even permitted if there is a good alternative. We should certainly not be indifferent to it.

Do you believe that our lives are eternal?

I have hope in the resurrection, yes.

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

Yes.

Do you believe that you should never have existed?

No. And therefore I do not think that my parents ought to have conceived a child minutes or hours or days or months earlier than they did, because if they had done this I would not exist.

Tell me this: should a child resulting from rape or incest, or just plain old fornication or adultery, never have existed? Surely you agree that that child is loved by God too. And yet you would hardly justify the actions which led to that child’s existence, much less condemn the rapist or adulterers if they had chosen to refrain from those actions.

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?

I know that at some point we will reach the limit of earth’s resources. It might not happen for thousands of years.

Do you believe there is no hope?

Rhetorical question of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety.

Without life there IS no hope.

But human life is not quantifiable. The life of one human being is of infinite value. Therefore, you can’t say that more lives are better. Nothing is greater than infinity.

Edwin

 

[Brooklyn]

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

You are Episcopalian, so I would not expect you to understand the Catholic position of always being open to life. The Catholic Church says that the marital act (and of course, the Church teaches that sex is only to be within the martial relationship) must always be open to procreation. Sex is not about satisfying ourselves but about giving ourselves to our spouse. That is why sex for sensual gratification only is considered inherently evil, even within marriage. And therefore, to use contraception to prevent life is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church, because you are not being open to life and are using sex only for sensual gratification.

Also, the Catholic Church puts the highest premium on human life, above every other form of life. Overpopulation is a myth. As I have previously stated, many countries around the world are suffering because deaths are outpacing births, and they are actually losing population. Even here in the United States, I believe many of our economic problems are being caused because we have killed 50 million babies who have not been able to grow up and contribute to our world.

My point is this: just which populations are we suppose to limit? Many liberals think that those of us in the western world are doing the most damage to the earth because we use so many “resources”. Are we the ones who are suppose to stop having children? Should we all feel guilty because we are here using earth’s resources and hurting the planet? Or is it someone else’s fault.

It all seems pretty silly to me. The earth was made for man, not man for the earth.

Mary

 

[Secret_Square]

“Some “population control methods” are downright wicked (abortion), or morally dubious (artificial contraception, which I believe is not intrinsically evil but should not be embraced uncritically). Others are morally indifferent (late marriage, if it does not promote unchastity, which admittedly it often does; spacing births by natural means). Others are downright virtuous (adoption, for instance–I recognize that you may not see this as a population control method, but in some cases it may be a substitute for having one’s own children).”

Actually, Edwin, you seem to be closer to Catholic teaching on this subject than a lot of Catholics are! Too often people assume that the Church opposes ALL forms of birth control or family planning, or that it expects all married couples to have as many children as possible, neither of which is true.

Sometimes Catholics on forums like this get into arguments about just how open to life couples must be and what counts as a serious enough reason to postpone or avoid pregnancy. There MAY be, among some Catholics and fundamentalist Christians, an assumption that having lots of kids gives you pro-life/orthodox “cred”, while having only one or two kids or none at all means you must not be a “real” Catholic. This of course, overlooks the fact that lots of people have small families through no fault of their own, or do have good reasons not to have more children that others do not know about.

The Church’s teaching about life and sexuality, I think, is NOT about how many kids you “should” have, but about your attitude toward them. Children are always to be regarded as a gift, not a burden. If this gift has to be “refused” (in the sense that one opts not to concieve another child; I am absolutely NOT talking about aborting a child already concieved) it should be done with regret that one is unable to accept the gift, not with a contemptuous “Heck, no, I’d be nuts to want another kid!” kind of attitude.

 

[Brooklyn]

“Some “population control methods” are downright wicked (abortion), or morally dubious (artificial contraception, which I believe is not intrinsically evil but should not be embraced uncritically). Others are morally indifferent (late marriage, if it does not promote unchastity, which admittedly it often does; spacing births by natural means). Others are downright virtuous (adoption, for instance–I recognize that you may not see this as a population control method, but in some cases it may be a substitute for having one’s own children).”

Actually, Edwin, you seem to be closer to Catholic teaching on this subject than a lot of Catholics are! Too often people assume that the Church opposes ALL forms of birth control or family planning, or that it expects all married couples to have as many children as possible, neither of which is true.

Sometimes Catholics on forums like this get into arguments about just how open to life couples must be and what counts as a serious enough reason to postpone or avoid pregnancy. There MAY be, among some Catholics and fundamentalist Christians, an assumption that having lots of kids gives you pro-life/orthodox “cred”, while having only one or two kids or none at all means you must not be a “real” Catholic. This of course, overlooks the fact that lots of people have small families through no fault of their own, or do have good reasons not to have more children that others do not know about.

The Church’s teaching about life and sexuality, I think, is NOT about how many kids you “should” have, but about your attitude toward them. Children are always to be regarded as a gift, not a burden. If this gift has to be “refused” (in the sense that one opts not to concieve another child; I am absolutely NOT talking about aborting a child already concieved) it should be done with regret that one is unable to accept the gift, not with a contemptuous “Heck, no, I’d be nuts to want another kid!” kind of attitude.

I would just like to add that these are your opinions and not the official teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church says we must always be open to life, and to not be open to life, even with a “regretful” attitude is a mortal sin. The Church allows for Natural Family Planning, but that is not to prevent contraception as much as it is to space children.

Mary

 

[Secret_Square]

I should clarify, of course, that when I speak of legitimately avoiding or postponing conception I am presuming that only natural means are used – those which Contarini/Edwin describes as “morally indifferent” – not those forbidden by the Church.

 

[Secret_Square]

Also, I presume that being “open to life” means you do not practice artificial contraception; that you are willing to accept the risk of surprise pregnancy inherent in limiting yourself to natural means; and that you will not, of course, resort to abortion if a surprise pregnancy happens, no matter how dire the circumstances. However – and there are moral theologians who have said this as well – being open to life does not necessarily mean you must NEVER pass up an opportunity to get pregnant, or that ONLY life or death medical reasons justify using NFP.

 

[JimG]

The earth has had limited resources ever since the formation of the solar system. Humanity doesn’t know the extent of the earth’s resources at any given time. And at any given time in human history or pre-history, a human observer could have looked around and said, “we are becoming too numerous and resources too few; we have nearly reached the limit of our resources.”

This could have been said at the hunter gatherer stage, when populations were running out of things to hunt and gather. It could have been said at the agricultural stage, noting that there were only so many rivers and creeks available for irrigation. It could have been said when we began to run out of whale oil, or of kerosene, or of the wood which was used for heating. When oil wells were first drilled, the kerosene was kept and the gunky oil disregarded.

We were running out of resources when there we couldn’t keep up with growing enough oats to feed the horses.

We were running out of resources when we could barely meet the demand for vacuum tubes for television and radio sets.

We were running out of resources when atomic energy was discovered, and when breeder reactors were invented. And we will keep running out of resources; we just don’t know which ones.

Consider productivity. Does a working person, during his or her lifetime, expect to produce only enough to support one person, or only one family? Or do we produce surplus? We are in fact the only natural resource that consistently produces surplus. Driving along the highway I often pass a sign that says “one Kansas farmer feeds 413 people plus you!” Of course, they could produce more, but prices are too low because production is so high.

What does the future hold? Nuclear electricity generation? We already have that, though at a pretty primitive stage. Fusion energy? Tapping into matter / anti-matter energy production?

I can’t begin to say. But in 10,000 BC, and in 6,000 BC, and in 500 BC and in 800 AD, and in 1,000 AD, and in 2009 AD, we are always running out of resources. And we never know which resource is next on the horizon, other than that it will be discovered by, or invented by, human beings.

 

[Brooklyn]

Also, I presume that being “open to life” means you do not practice artificial contraception; that you are willing to accept the risk of surprise pregnancy inherent in limiting yourself to natural means; and that you will not, of course, resort to abortion if a surprise pregnancy happens, no matter how dire the circumstances. However – and there are moral theologians who have said this as well – being open to life does not necessarily mean you must NEVER pass up an opportunity to get pregnant, or that ONLY life or death medical reasons justify using NFP.

That sounds right to me.

 

[Brooklyn]

The earth has had limited resources ever since the formation of the solar system. Humanity doesn’t know the extent of the earth’s resources at any given time. And at any given time in human history or pre-history, a human observer could have looked around and said, “we are becoming too numerous and resources too few; we have nearly reached the limit of our resources.”

This could have been said at the hunter gatherer stage, when populations were running out of things to hunt and gather. It could have been said at the agricultural stage, noting that there were only so many rivers and creeks available for irrigation. It could have been said when we began to run out of whale oil, or of kerosene, or of the wood which was used for heating. When oil wells were first drilled, the kerosene was kept and the gunky oil disregarded.

We were running out of resources when there we couldn’t keep up with growing enough oats to feed the horses.

We were running out of resources when we could barely meet the demand for vacuum tubes for television and radio sets.

We were running out of resources when atomic energy was discovered, and when breeder reactors were invented. And we will keep running out of resources; we just don’t know which ones.

Consider productivity. Does a working person, during his or her lifetime, expect to produce only enough to support one person, or only one family? Or do we produce surplus? We are in fact the only natural resource that consistently produces surplus. Driving along the highway I often pass a sign that says “one Kansas farmer feeds 413 people plus you!” Of course, they could produce more, but prices are too low because production is so high.

What does the future hold? Nuclear electricity generation? We already have that, though at a pretty primitive stage. Fusion energy? Tapping into matter / anti-matter energy production?

I can’t begin to say. But in 10,000 BC, and in 6,000 BC, and in 500 BC and in 800 AD, and in 1,000 AD, and in 2009 AD, we are always running out of resources. And we never know which resource is next on the horizon, other than that it will be discovered by, or invented by, human beings.

Poor God.I guess he was just a bad planner. He gave us such a finite earth and yet told us to be fruitful and multiply. What was he thinking? Didn’t he know that he didn’t give us enough resources?

It’s just up to us to right his mistake and stop having children! Sorry God, but you were wrong when you told us to be fruitful. We know so much better than you.

 

[Brooklyn]

The earth has had limited resources ever since the formation of the solar system. Humanity doesn’t know the extent of the earth’s resources at any given time. And at any given time in human history or pre-history, a human observer could have looked around and said, “we are becoming too numerous and resources too few; we have nearly reached the limit of our resources.”

This could have been said at the hunter gatherer stage, when populations were running out of things to hunt and gather. It could have been said at the agricultural stage, noting that there were only so many rivers and creeks available for irrigation. It could have been said when we began to run out of whale oil, or of kerosene, or of the wood which was used for heating. When oil wells were first drilled, the kerosene was kept and the gunky oil disregarded.

We were running out of resources when there we couldn’t keep up with growing enough oats to feed the horses.

We were running out of resources when we could barely meet the demand for vacuum tubes for television and radio sets.

We were running out of resources when atomic energy was discovered, and when breeder reactors were invented. And we will keep running out of resources; we just don’t know which ones.

Consider productivity. Does a working person, during his or her lifetime, expect to produce only enough to support one person, or only one family? Or do we produce surplus? We are in fact the only natural resource that consistently produces surplus. Driving along the highway I often pass a sign that says “one Kansas farmer feeds 413 people plus you!” Of course, they could produce more, but prices are too low because production is so high.

What does the future hold? Nuclear electricity generation? We already have that, though at a pretty primitive stage. Fusion energy? Tapping into matter / anti-matter energy production?

I can’t begin to say. But in 10,000 BC, and in 6,000 BC, and in 500 BC and in 800 AD, and in 1,000 AD, and in 2009 AD, we are always running out of resources. And we never know which resource is next on the horizon, other than that it will be discovered by, or invented by, human beings.

Those who have decided there are too many people for the earth to support are basically saying: Poor God.I guess he was just a bad planner. He gave us such a finite earth and yet told us to be fruitful and multiply. What was he thinking? Didn’t he know that he didn’t give us enough resources?

It’s just up to us to right his mistake and stop having children! Sorry God, but you were wrong when you told us to be fruitful. We know so much better than you.

I think your post pretty much debunks that argument. Thank you.

 

[Contarini]

Those who have decided there are too many people for the earth to support are basically saying: Poor God.I guess he was just a bad planner. He gave us such a finite earth and yet told us to be fruitful and multiply. What was he thinking? Didn’t he know that he didn’t give us enough resources?

It’s just up to us to right his mistake and stop having children! Sorry God, but you were wrong when you told us to be fruitful. We know so much better than you.

I think your post pretty much debunks that argument. Thank you.

It doesn’t debunk anything. It’s a typical straw-man argument.

You assume that the command in Genesis 1 mandates unending increase. You make no argument for this assumption, so it has no weight whatsoever.

Edwin

 

[tjm190]

Those who have decided there are too many people for the earth to support are basically saying: Poor God.I guess he was just a bad planner. He gave us such a finite earth and yet told us to be fruitful and multiply. What was he thinking? Didn’t he know that he didn’t give us enough resources?

It’s just up to us to right his mistake and stop having children! Sorry God, but you were wrong when you told us to be fruitful. We know so much better than you.

I think your post pretty much debunks that argument. Thank you.

Sadly it does not, given that God did not say “and continue to be fruitful and multiply when the result is starving children”

 

[JimG]

Sadly it does not, given that God did not say “and continue to be fruitful and multiply when the result is starving children”

Well, I didn’t say anything about God’s command or about Genesis. I’m just saying that at any given time in human history, resources are going to look insufficient. Were there never any starving children of hunter gatherers? Was there no starving in agricultural societies? Was there no starvation when we had not yet even tapped the oil and gas resources which, we say, are now running out?

When the earth has a population of 18 billion and the Martian colony is agitating about independence, both we and they will be arguing about resources.

Unless there is nuclear war, then we will be simply trying to rebuild population as quickly as possible.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, I didn’t say anything about God’s command or about Genesis. I’m just saying that at any given time in human history, resources are going to look insufficient. Were there never any starving children of hunter gatherers? Was there no starving in agricultural societies? Was there no starvation when we had not yet even tapped the oil and gas resources which, we say, are now running out?

When the earth has a population of 18 billion and the Martian colony is agitating about independence, both we and they will be arguing about resources.

Unless there is nuclear war, then we will be simply trying to rebuild population as quickly as possible.

There is nothing anywhere in God’s Word to inidicate that He rescinded his command to be fruitful and multiply or that He put any qualifications on it at all. Man is playing god when we are told that people are a scourge of the earth and must be limited in their growth. That is a satanic lie directly from the enemy of God who wants to destroy us. Man is God’s ultimate creation and when God created us He said it was very good. To want to eliminate the human race in any way is Satanic. Do you really believe God would create a world, put his most precious creation on that world and not give us all we need to survive?If so, you really do believe God is incompetent and you know better than He does.

 

[Brooklyn]

It doesn’t debunk anything. It’s a typical straw-man argument.

You assume that the command in Genesis 1 mandates unending increase. You make no argument for this assumption, so it has no weight whatsoever.

Edwin

A straw man argument is an argument that doesn’t exist, that we both already agree on. I don’t see a straw man argument here at all.

There is nothing anywhere in God’s Word to inidicate that He rescinded his command to be fruitful and multiply or that He put any qualifications on it at all. Man is playing god when we are told that people are a scourge of the earth and must be limited in their growth. That is a satanic lie directly from the enemy of God who wants to destroy us. Man is God’s ultimate creation and when God created us He said it was very good. To want to eliminate the human race in any way is Satanic. Do you really believe God would create a world, put his most precious creation on that world and not give us all we need to survive?If so, you really do believe God is incompetent and you know better than He does.

All the great poverty and suffering in the world is the result of sin, of man’s greediness and trying to do it his own way instead of God’s way. God did not tell Adam and Eve that they could not have more than 2 children, and he did not say that to their descendants at any time.

Man in not the scourge of the earth, he is the earth’s crowning glory. Sin is the scourge of the earth. That is what must be eliminated, not human beings.

Mary

 

[luvmykids]

The world has finite resources. That’s undeniable.

O.K…

God has a long track record of not saving people from the consequences of their folly. That is not to say that He never so intervenes, but He usually does not do so.

This really makes no sense…So, because we are afraid of God not saving us from our folly, we should just stop procreating. That’ll do it, “You can’t get me God, I just won’t have anymore kids!”

That’s a vague term. Some “population control methods” are downright wicked (abortion), or morally dubious (artificial contraception, which I believe is not intrinsically evil but should not be embraced uncritically). Others are morally indifferent (late marriage, if it does not promote unchastity, which admittedly it often does; spacing births by natural means). Others are downright virtuous (adoption, for instance–I recognize that you may not see this as a population control method, but in some cases it may be a substitute for having one’s own children)…

It’s not vague, it is just all encompassing. I mean it literally, ANY population control methods. Late marriage is not a population control method…but I do however, have no problem with (and fully recommend) chaste living. When I spoke about Godlessness as being one of our problems, that includes, fornication and adultery. God does not love those children who result from this any less, but the sinful act should never have happened. God can bring good out of evil and that is a perfect example of it!

That the earth is limited is pretty obvious. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the earth–a rough sphere about 8,000 miles in diameter and 25,000 miles in circumference. )…

I agree.

God made us through human agency. Invoking divine agency to abdicate our responsibility is not a sound approach in any respect.)…

I do not see how practicing the marital act within the sacrament of marriage is abdicating our responsiblity when it brings forth new life. Sorry, I don’t see this. If we are caring for our children and living up to our responsibility, and we are living Godly lives, why does it matter how many children we have… because there are people out there who are deciding they think the sky is falling?

Of course not. But I don’t think human suffering should be caused (unless absolutely necessary for some legitimate reason) or even permitted if there is a good alternative. We should certainly not be indifferent to it…)…

I agree that it shouldn’t be caused, but it also can’t be avoided. Human suffering is part of life. Should those lives never have existed, because they will suffer? Some day when we have eternal life, those people that suffered are going to be there with us, will they not? They will have eternal life. Why do you think Satan does not want more human life? That will be more human life for the glory of God in heaven for ETERNITY!

I have hope in the resurrection, yes…

Then see above…the part about eternal life and all those lives that suffered down here on this LIMITED earth.

Yes…

Then how could it ever be wrong?

No. And therefore I do not think that my parents ought to have conceived a child minutes or hours or days or months earlier than they did, because if they had done this I would not exist.

Tell me this: should a child resulting from rape or incest, or just plain old fornication or adultery, never have existed? Surely you agree that that child is loved by God too. And yet you would hardly justify the actions which led to that child’s existence, much less condemn the rapist or adulterers if they had chosen to refrain from those actions…

I think I answered this question above.

I know that at some point we will reach the limit of earth’s resources. It might not happen for thousands of years…

Fine then why worry about it now? Only God knows, have faith in Him. It may be God’s plan that we don’t exist that much longer…you know, revelations and all? It just seems silly to stop procreating, because we are worried about what might happen to us. Lots of bad things could happen to us. It looks like we may have World War III soon, should we not have anymore kids, cause they might really have to suffer? It looks like we could possibly have another plague type situation, should we stop having anymore kids, cause they might get it and really have to suffer? We really need to stop playing God and trying to take control of humanity, which is something that should be left to only Him. This is includes things like in-vitro fertilization, cloning, microsort, etc…

Rhetorical question of the “have you stopped beating your wife” variety…

No, it’s not a rhetorical question…it was meant to be answered. If you believe there is hope then why would you want to use such a drastic measure like limited the amount of human beings on this earth, because if you ask me, that has more dire consequences and is more of threat than overpopulation is.

But human life is not quantifiable. The life of one human being is of infinite value. Therefore, you can’t say that more lives are better. Nothing is greater than infinity…

That’s right, I am not saying that more life is better than just one person living, but at the same time, that one life is not more important than all the other lives that are to exist either. Meaning that we should not be denying the lives of others, because we fear there may not be enough for them. We are all just as valuable as the next, but each of us has a different, but equally important part to play in God’s plan. GOD is the author of human life, so He and He alone knows best. Due to fear,(which is from the devil), we may be denying a blessing from God, that was meant to save millions or even just one or two. Do you see what I am saying? Let’s have prudence in our lives, but not to fear. Do nothing out of fear. You can’t say for certain that we need to stop procreating now, because we know that in 30 years there will be no more food or water. We do not know this. See above post by JimG for more.

 

[Contarini]

A straw man argument is an argument that doesn’t exist, that we both already agree on. I don’t see a straw man argument here at all.

I mean that no one is actually saying that we know better than God.

There is nothing anywhere in God’s Word to inidicate that He rescinded his command to be fruitful and multiply or that He put any qualifications on it at all.

Actually there is. The command to be fruitful and multiply is linked to the command to “fill” the earth. Why are you omitting that part?

Man is playing god when we are told that people are a scourge of the earth

Straw man again. Sure, some environmentalists use that kind of rhetoric (probably derived from centuries of Christian teaching about human sinfulness, now secularized). But that’s not really relevant to the issue at hand. We can agree that the *existence *of humanity is not a scourge of the earth. But human sinfulness and folly are the scourge of the earth.

and must be limited in their growth.

I would prefer to say “must be responsible in our stewardship of the earth.” I’m happy to be vague about what that means in this regard. I honestly don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about population control. I don’t think it’s the big issue that some environmentalists claim. But many of the objections to it are simply irrational.

That is a satanic lie directly from the enemy of God who wants to destroy us.

That makes no sense. How is the slowing or even arresting of population growth “destruction” on either a physical or spiritual level?

And of course one can claim that anything one happens not to like is a “satanic lie.” You need to have some substance behind that rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

Man is God’s ultimate creation and when God created us He said it was very good. To want to eliminate the human race in any way is Satanic

Straw man again. Fewer humans, or not as many more humans as there might be, hardly mean the “elimination” of the human race. That implies that the human race was “eliminated” until it reached the current population level–which is plainly absurd.

God pronounced creation very good when (if we take the story literally) there were only two humans. Obviously God told those humans to procreate. But creation was already very good, so clearly it would be very good if there were a million or a billion or the present number (is it six or seven billion now? It goes up so fast I can’t keep track), instead of some larger number.

Do you really believe God would create a world, put his most precious creation on that world and not give us all we need to survive?If so, you really do believe God is incompetent and you know better than He does.

Again, this is simply a silly argument. You could defend *any *destructive behavior on the ground that God would not allow it to have its natural effect. This is called “tempting God,” and we are sternly commanded not to do this in Scripture.

All the great poverty and suffering in the world is the result of sin, of man’s greediness and trying to do it his own way instead of God’s way. God did not tell Adam and Eve that they could not have more than 2 children, and he did not say that to their descendants at any time.

But he also didn’t say that they must keep going ad infinitum. You are the one resting an argument on this passage, so the burden of proof is on you to show that the passage means what you say it means.

Man in not the scourge of the earth, he is the earth’s crowning glory. Sin is the scourge of the earth. That is what must be eliminated, not human beings.

Relax. The elimination of human beings is not the issue. In fact, what the more doomsday environmentalists are trying to prevent *is *the elimination of human beings. I’m not sure it would go that far, myself. But we might as well not find out!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This really makes no sense…So, because we are afraid of God not saving us from our folly, we should just stop procreating.

No, but we should not commit what sound reason tells us to be foolish actions.
I am not myself certain that having a large family is a foolish action. But I am certain that the question can’t be resolved by the claim that God won’t allow us to commit foolish actions and get ourselves in some rather serious trouble by so doing. Clearly He has often permitted us to get ourselves in trouble in the past.

When I spoke about Godlessness as being one of our problems, that includes, fornication and adultery. God does not love those children who result from this any less, but the sinful act should never have happened. God can bring good out of evil and that is a perfect example of it!

You miss the point of my argument. You are claiming that to advocate any limitation of procreation is somehow to deny the value of those who are procreated. Yet you do not deny the value of those whose existence results directly from an act of sexual immorality. Clearly in that case you have no problem saying that the act of rape or adultery shouldn’t have happened and at the same time that the conception of the child was part of God’s providential order and that God loves and values that child. Similarly, I have no problem entertaining the possibility that having fewer children might be prudent while still saying that all the children who are conceived are loved by God and should be respected and valued.

I do not see how practicing the marital act within the sacrament of marriage is abdicating our responsiblity when it brings forth new life. Sorry, I don’t see this. If we are caring for our children and living up to our responsibility, and we are living Godly lives, why does it matter how many children we have… because there are people out there who are deciding they think the sky is falling?

If you are not convinced by the arguments in favor of population control, then fine. (I am not sure that I’m convinced by them myself. My problem is that you are trying to rule these arguments out in advance of a serious consideration, on the ground that they are incompatible with trust in God. That is clearly illogical.

I agree that it shouldn’t be caused, but it also can’t be avoided. Human suffering is part of life. Should those lives never have existed, because they will suffer?

Straw man argument again. But if having fewer children means that the children we do have will be less likely to suffer, then that’s a serious consideration. Again, you are committing the fallacy of treating hypothetical children as if they were actual. I have shown in a previous post (to Brooklyn) how absurd are the consequences of this.

Some day when we have eternal life, those people that suffered are going to be there with us, will they not? They will have eternal life. Why do you think Satan does not want more human life? That will be more human life for the glory of God in heaven for ETERNITY!

Again, I think that quantifying human life is a serious mistake.

Then see above…the part about eternal life and all those lives that suffered down here on this LIMITED earth.

I’m not sure how it is relevant unless you are making the horrific argument that we should be indifferent to human suffering because from the standpoint of eternity it somehow “won’t matter.” At that point I would say with Ivan Karamazov, “I respectfully return my ticket.”

Then how could it ever be wrong?

Logically, this argument would justify any action that results in the conception of a human being. Clearly neither of us thinks this. As you said, God brings good out of evil. And more than that, God brings good out of actions that are not actually evil but may be less than fully wise. God is the author of life, but God uses human actions–good, bad, wise and foolish–to bring life into the world.

The paradox is that there are some actions which may be wrong when we are considering them, even if retrospectively we say that God willed them. Perhaps a better example than the one I gave above about rape and adultery (since what we are talking about is not intrinsically evil) is marriage. God likes marriage, right? Once two people have gotten married, that marriage is indissoluble, and it would be wicked of them to second-guess God and decide that their marriage wasn’t God’s will. And yet there are many cases where parents may say to their children, “Are you sure that that person is right for you?” Marrying a particular person (or even marrying at all in some circumstances) may be foolish, even though once it has happened we can look back and say that it is God’s will. This is paradoxical, but it’s the result of our living in time and God’s living in eternity.

I think I answered this question above.

No, you avoided it. And you only addressed the second part anyway. You did not address the question of whether my existence is somehow a grievous wrong to that hypothetical child who might have been conceived a few minutes or hours or days sooner.

Fine then why worry about it now?

I don’t think we should worry. I think we should consider the question rationally with the minds God gave us and make a decision based on the evidence as we know it. And then we should trust that God will use our actions, whether wise or foolish, to work out His will (even though our mistakes may cause suffering to ourselves and others). What matters is that we make the best decision we can. *That *is faith in God. Using faith in God to justify failing to make the best decision we can on the evidence we have is arguably a violation of the Second Commandment (using the Catholic/Lutheran numbering).

It may be God’s plan that we don’t exist that much longer…you know, revelations and all?

Indeed. See our previous discussions about God bringing good out of evil. Our folly may be part of God’s providential purpose. But that doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility for acting wisely and virtuously. Acting in such a way as to bring an end to the human race is very wicked and foolish *unless *we are in a situation where every other action is intrinsically evil. (For instance, I would never suggest that Catholics should drop their opposition to artificial contraception because of the overpopulation issue, and I would never in a million years justify abortion even if–which is not likely or even possible–it were the only way to postpone the end of the human race.)

 

[Contarini]

It just seems silly to stop procreating,

Again, straw man. The question is not whether we should stop procreating altogether. That *would *end the human race in a generation!

because we are worried about what might happen to us. Lots of bad things could happen to us. It looks like we may have World War III soon,

It doesn’t look that way to me. And if you listen to the neocons (who seem to love world wars), we are already in World War IV!

should we not have anymore kids, cause they might really have to suffer?

No. The question is not whether we should refrain from bringing new life into the world. That is the straw man you keep posing. The fact that you cannot discuss the issue without setting up this straw man speaks volumes for the weakness of your position. The question is solely whether it might be a good idea to have two or three children instead of four or five or ten or twenty.

We really need to stop playing God

Again, you are using a cliche instead of an argument. “Playing God” may be good or bad depending on what it is we are doing–are we acting as humans made in God’s image (which could be described as “playing God” in a sense)? Are we doing God’s work of healing the sick, feeding the hungry, caring for creation? Or are we (which is what you probably mean) arrogantly assuming that we are in control of our own fates?

I am quite aware that we can’t foresee the consequences of our own actions with any certainty. Whatever we do needs to be done in humble dependence on God. But that being said, we have to act as prudently as we can to care for this world that God has entrusted to us. Perhaps that is “playing God”–but in a noble and honorable sense!

No, it’s not a rhetorical question…it was meant to be answered. If you believe there is hope then why would you want to use such a drastic measure like limited the amount of human beings on this earth,

Having two or three children rather than six or seven is hardly a drastic measure. Adopting children may be drastic, but I suspect that both of us approve of it.

I can’t see how to take your question seriously. You might as well say, “if you think there is hope why not eat lots of really rich food every day,” or “if you think there is hope why not leave your door unlocked at night even if you live in a dangerous neighborhood.” (Actually I could make an argument for the latter course of action.) Having hope doesn’t mean that we abandon prudence.

because if you ask me, that has more dire consequences and is more of threat than overpopulation is.

But you can’t substantiate this claim. Provide evidence that staying at six or seven billion will have more dire consequences than growing to ten or twenty or a hundred billion.

That’s right, I am not saying that more life is better than just one person living,

Then your argument makes no sense.

but at the same time, that one life is not more important than all the other lives that are to exist either.

Now you are really “playing God” in the bad sense. You are speaking of “lives that are to exist.” But only God, from the standpoint of eternity, can use such language. All we can speak of is “lives that may exist.” And even that is a weird form of language. They aren’t “lives” yet. As I said in an earlier post, treating hypothetical life as if it were real blurs the importance of conception and fatally weakens the prolife position. You should take this consideration more seriously.

As I showed above (a point you completely ignored), we *can’t *bring all possible lives into existence. We have no obligation to try to do such an absurd thing.

So I totally deny your claim above. The one life that *does *exist (from conception on) is infinitely more important than all the hypothetical lives that could have existed but didn’t and don’t and never will.

Due to fear,(which is from the devil),

I’m glad we agree on this. Perhaps then you could stop accusing those who disagree with you of promoting Satanic lies. That is clearly spreading fear, and we know where that comes from

I don’t think this should be a question of fear, but of prudence.

we may be denying a blessing from God, that was meant to save millions or even just one or two.

First of all, it’s also possible that the child might slaughter millions. By this argument God really pulled a dirty trick on Hitler’s parents! We don’t conceive children because we think they will do something wonderful. We conceive them because bringing new human life into the world is intrinsically good (but not in a quantifiable way).

But more to the point, your language implies that God’s providential purposes can be thwarted, even though your whole line of rhetoric rests on the belief that they can’t be thwarted!

Do you see what I am saying? Let’s have prudence in our lives, but not to fear. Do nothing out of fear.

No disagreement there.

You can’t say for certain that we need to stop procreating now, because we know that in 30 years there will be no more food or water. We do not know this. See above post by JimG for more.

I agree entirely. And I don’t think we should stop procreating. The Talmud understands the command in Gen. 1 to be fulfilled if a couple has one child of each sex. Myself, I think that’s a good ballpark number–go for one of each, and then stop (barring accidents, which are of course gifts from God!), whether that should result in two or five or ten children! But of course different circumstances will modify this–it’s not a legal command for us Christians.

As St. Jerome said: Marriage populates earth, but virginity heaven! I’m not sure I agree with him entirely on that, but the truth is that the Church procreates by baptism, not conception.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You are Episcopalian, so I would not expect you to understand the Catholic position of always being open to life.

I think I understand it quite well, actually. I am not entirely sure either way on the question of whether artificial contraception is intrinsically incompatible with being “open to life.” I do believe that for a married couple to choose to have *no *children at all (unless perhaps they choose to adopt children instead of conceiving them naturally) is a denial of their calling.

Also, the Catholic Church puts the highest premium on human life, above every other form of life.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t value other kinds of life as well. Goods are not in competition with each other as often as many of us assume in our fear and lack of faith.

Overpopulation is a myth.

See, here’s the problem. By linking a highly dubious claim of fact with the Church’s teaching, you discredit the Church’s teaching in the minds of many. This is not wise. You need to make it clearer that your claim about overpopulation is your *opinion *and is open to debate. One can believe that overpopulation is a serious potential problem without denying any teaching of the Catholic Church. Are we agreed on that point?

As I have previously stated, many countries around the world are suffering because deaths are outpacing births, and they are actually losing population.

Examples?

Even here in the United States, I believe many of our economic problems are being caused because we have killed 50 million babies who have not been able to grow up and contribute to our world.

This is a very bad line of argument. Steven Pinker has suggested that abortion may have led to a drop in crime. We should be able to agree that either your suggestion or his is irrelevant to the moral issue. Abortion would be wicked even if it could eliminate crime altogether and create a paradise on earth.

My point is this: just which populations are we suppose to limit?

I don’t think we should put the question that way. It is tyrannical to run around trying to limit other people’s populations. But those of us who are married can make choices. Given the age at which my wife and I got married, having a really large family wasn’t an issue anyway. But we could certainly have procreated a bit faster than we have. I don’t claim that overpopulation was a particularly important consideration, by the way.

I don’t criticize folks who have large families. As an only child, I like the liveliness of a large family. What I’m really looking for is more modest: let those who have large families stop claiming to be spiritually superior and stop pushing large family size as some kind of Christian duty. And let’s not make bad arguments in the mistaken belief that Christian teaching forces us to do so.

Many liberals think that those of us in the western world are doing the most damage to the earth because we use so many “resources”.

I’m not sure we are doing the most damage. But I am sure that we are in a better position to stop doing damage.

Are we the ones who are suppose to stop having children?

I don’t think anyone is supposed to stop having children.

Should we all feel guilty because we are here using earth’s resources and hurting the planet? Or is it someone else’s fault.

We certainly shouldn’t shift the blame to other people. I’m not sure why you bring that up–another straw man, I guess! And I don’t think that loading ourselves down with guilt is helpful. Rather, we should practice the virtues of prudence and temperance (neither of which are strong points for me!), and for that matter the other five as well, in whatever ways our particular callings and locations lead us to do. Vague, but the best I can do–I don’t think there’s a panacea.

It all seems pretty silly to me.

And that’s where you lose me. You simply don’t seem to be thinking logically about this at all. For me it’s not really about how many children we should have. It’s about admitting that there are serious issues with the consumption of the world’s resources and that we need to tackle these issues in a wise and virtuous way instead of dismissing them.

The earth was made for man, not man for the earth.

I’m not sure it’s that simple. God placed us on earth to take care of it. God cares for the whole of creation. We don’t need to see ourselves in competition with the earth which God has entrusted to us.

Edwin