So what about overpopulation?

[WillieWonka]

China and India are the world’s two big up-and-coming nations. Human resources are no more to be over-exploited than any other resources, but, make no mistake, they are the most valuable resource anybody has.

Thay are valuable. Would they be better off with a larger population?

 

[WillieWonka]

I believe that I am on your side on this issue. It was you who made a point a few posts back about Russia and Japan worrying about underpopulation. Economics is nothing more than interactions of people. Without people, there is no economy.

Sorry. You have me confused with someone else.

 

[WillieWonka]

Politicians only want more voters if they are voters for their particular party. Economists seldom agree on anything including the optimal population for a society. I don’t normally hear land developers talking much about population; they will build houses if there is demand; if not, they’ll build something else.

As for religions, the Catholic Church is the only one I know of for certain that opposes artificial birth control. But even it has no stated policy on optimal population.

I might make the opposite point. Those who propose limiting populations don’t point to any particular concrete examples of nations or regions which have greatly benefited from population decline.

The 20% decline in population from the Black Death in Europe was followed by a spurt in prosperity. Economic historians attribute that to the breakdown of the manor system, loss of power by the Church, and the new opportunities presented by the more abundant resources.

 

[JimG]

The 20% decline in population from the Black Death in Europe was followed by a spurt in prosperity. Economic historians attribute that to the breakdown of the manor system, loss of power by the Church, and the new opportunities presented by the more abundant resources.

Thanks for the example. I’m sure we can come up with another Black Death if we really put our minds to it.

 

[JRKH]

A lot of people seem to sneer at this as an excuse for contraception and abortion, but really, what should be done about the problem at hand?

There are many many humans in a world that now contains few other wild mammals, and in many areas, is losing wild land, forests, grassland, plains etc to housing or in order to manufacture things for humans. Not to mention things like factory farming, needed to feed the amount of people on earth. And that’s even without everyone being fed, or even kept alive, by the resources.

Any couple who has more than two children is contributing, as they are creating more new life than will ‘fill their shoes’ so to speak.

What should be done about overpopulation if contraception and abortion (and homosexuality, heh) are no-no’s?

Population increases because People have sex. They are not “driven uncontrollably” to it but rather are “drawn to it” and then freely engage in it. The reason for this “Draw” is simple - Procreation.
So - The simple answer to your question about what should be done…if these other things are wrong is to stop having so much sex.

I know - Roll Eyes, Heave Sigh, - How unrealistic of me.

People Choose to have sex (n most cases).
They also Choose to use “Protection”
The also Choose to have an Abortion.

People freely Choose each of these things, but the only one that is looked upon as not a “reasonable” Choice is abstinance. How sad.

Peace
James

 

[WillieWonka]

Population increases because People have sex. They are not “driven uncontrollably” to it but rather are “drawn to it” and then freely engage in it. The reason for this “Draw” is simple - Procreation.
So - The simple answer to your question about what should be done…if these other things are wrong is to stop having so much sex.

I know - Roll Eyes, Heave Sigh, - How unrealistic of me.

People Choose to have sex (n most cases).
They also Choose to use “Protection”
The also Choose to have an Abortion.

People freely Choose each of these things, but the only one that is looked upon as not a “reasonable” Choice is abstinance. How sad.

Peace
James

Different people find different approaches reasonable and effective for themselves and their situation. Some choose one, some choose another. Others try to get everyone to choose their favorite, and campaign against alternatives.

 

[luvmykids]

Different people find different approaches reasonable and effective for themselves and their situation. Some choose one, some choose another. Others try to get everyone to choose their favorite, and campaign against alternatives.

Yes, and some are based more on common sense than others. For example, common sense will tell you that abortion is murder, so I would not recommend that approach. The other approach is trying to “protect” yourself from the consequences of a freely chosen act. I would recommend the best thing to do is not perform the act you need “protection” from. It makes the most sense to me, but I understand that the majority of people in this world are lacking in common sense, self discipline, and self control.

 

[Brooklyn]

I believe that I am on your side on this issue. It was you who made a point a few posts back about Russia and Japan worrying about underpopulation. Economics is nothing more than interactions of people. Without people, there is no economy.

Maybe I’m just missing something here, but it still seems to me that you are reducing people’s worth to how much they benefit the state which is very much an atheistic and communistic approach. If I understand you correctly, you’re defending a larger population because it brings greater financial rewards than a small population. Yes, it is true that Russia and Japan are worried about underpopulation, and Spain is even paying people to have babies because they are so underpopulated. And yes, those countries are worried about their economies. But I brought that up to show that there is actually underpopulation in the world, not overpopulation.

My argument is that God put us on this earth and told us to be fruitful and multiply. God is the one who designed the earth for mankind, so therefore the earth can support however many people God allows. Those who argue for population control are arguing that the earth cannot support any more people than we have right now and therefore we must do whatever we can to curb population. I say that is a satanic lie. You gave very good arguments for why the earth can support more people, but your main line still seems to be economics.

That just sounds so wrong to me.

 

[Brooklyn]

China and India are the world’s two big up-and-coming nations. Human resources are no more to be over-exploited than any other resources, but, make no mistake, they are the most valuable resource anybody has.

Human beings are “resources” just like oil and coal, only more valuable? Our Lord came to die for “resources”? What am I missing here, because this sounds really bad. Where are you all coming from?

 

[PapaSquash]

Human beings are “resources” just like oil and coal, only more valuable? Our Lord came to die for “resources”? What am I missing here, because this sounds really bad. Where are you all coming from?

Humans are “resources” in the sense that they are the most valuable thing that a nation (or any organization) has. They are what make it great. Humans do the work, have the ideas, make the art, inspire each other, love each other, nurture the future generations, invent the new technologies, make IT happen, whatever IT is. People are the whole point of doing whatever it is they are doing.

The idea that humans are a drain on resources is a modern fallacy. Look at China and India. While a lot of “modern, progressive” thinkers would say they have too many people, they are booming and growing and starting up space programs and making things happen. It seems like a large population isn’t hurting them any, I suspect that it is just the opposite; several million people pulling in the same direction are going to get somewhere.

I use the term “Human Resources” because it is (or was) popular in American business-speak. Smart companies know that the right people are worth way more in the long run, than the patents or the machinery or the real estate.

 

[WillieWonka]

Yes, and some are based more on common sense than others. For example, common sense will tell you that abortion is murder, so I would not recommend that approach. The other approach is trying to “protect” yourself from the consequences of a freely chosen act. I would recommend the best thing to do is not perform the act you need “protection” from. It makes the most sense to me, but I understand that the majority of people in this world are lacking in common sense, self discipline, and self control.

OK. You have common sense and the rest of us don’t.

 

[WillieWonka]

Maybe I’m just missing something here, but it still seems to me that you are reducing people’s worth to how much they benefit the state which is very much an atheistic and communistic approach. If I understand you correctly, you’re defending a larger population because it brings greater financial rewards than a small population. Yes, it is true that Russia and Japan are worried about underpopulation, and Spain is even paying people to have babies because they are so underpopulated. And yes, those countries are worried about their economies. But I brought that up to show that there is actually underpopulation in the world, not overpopulation.

My argument is that God put us on this earth and told us to be fruitful and multiply. God is the one who designed the earth for mankind, so therefore the earth can support however many people God allows. Those who argue for population control are arguing that the earth cannot support any more people than we have right now and therefore we must do whatever we can to curb population. I say that is a satanic lie. You gave very good arguments for why the earth can support more people, but your main line still seems to be economics.

That just sounds so wrong to me.

Well, how do we determine how many people God has allowed for? In many places in the past they learned that with famine.

Those who argue for population control want to avoid the traditional method of finding the limit.

What do you suggest we do when we find out how many God allows?

 

[WillieWonka]

Human beings are “resources” just like oil and coal, only more valuable? Our Lord came to die for “resources”? What am I missing here, because this sounds really bad. Where are you all coming from?

Of course human labor is a resource employed in production. We see it all around us. What’s the problem with that?

It’s not like oil and coal because those are material resources, not labor resources. But, we can see that millions of humans have been displaced in production by machines powered by oil and coal.

 

[Contarini]

But procreation is something that God MUST actively participate in. Humans cannot create a new soul by any action of themselves. God must, in an act of Divine Will, create the soul.

But God does this in *response *to human action. So again, it is foolish to argue that the human action of choosing to procreate is necessarily good just because God infuses a soul into the resulting human being.

Note that I myself am not entirely convinced that traducianism is wrong, given the problems with body/soul dualism. But your position still doesn’t have the implications you want it to have. As I have said several times, this argument implies that God approves of rape and adultery.

That is why there can be no such thing as ‘overpopulation’ to a Catholic.

Then it must also be true that an act of rape or adultery that results in conception cannot be sinful or wrong in any way.

That would mean that there are more people living that God had chosen to actually create, which is a contraction.

No, it would mean that as He so often does God continues to do His job even when humans act foolishly or badly.

A family can certainly have fewer children than God would like them to have, but they cannot have more children than God would like them to have.

If one holds to a traditional, patristic/Thomist understanding of God’s nature (particularly the atemporality of God), *any *statement about what God “would like” is tricky. I find your logic highly strained. God incorporates our actions into His eternal purpose, but that does not absolve us from acting wisely. I do not see that a creationist view of the origin of the soul carries the weight you want it to have.

Creating a soul is intrinsically good. If having more children is not always wise, then all that follows is that God does a good thing in response to humans doing a foolish one. This is paradoxical, but no more paradoxical than most other instances of the interaction between our foolish and sinful wills and God’s perfect and changeless will.

Edwin

 

[WillieWonka]

Humans are “resources” in the sense that they are the most valuable thing that a nation (or any organization) has. They are what make it great. Humans do the work, have the ideas, make the art, inspire each other, love each other, nurture the future generations, invent the new technologies, make IT happen, whatever IT is. People are the whole point of doing whatever it is they are doing.

The idea that humans are a drain on resources is a modern fallacy. Look at China and India. While a lot of “modern, progressive” thinkers would say they have too many people, they are booming and growing and starting up space programs and making things happen. It seems like a large population isn’t hurting them any, I suspect that it is just the opposite; several million people pulling in the same direction are going to get somewhere.

I use the term “Human Resources” because it is (or was) popular in American business-speak. Smart companies know that the right people are worth way more in the long run, than the patents or the machinery or the real estate.

The boom in China and India is limited to certain areas and populations.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

God made this lovely earth so that we would* listen* to His will and multiply! (Just wanted to clarify that.) God bless you all!

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, how do we determine how many people God has allowed for? In many places in the past they learned that with famine.

Those who argue for population control want to avoid the traditional method of finding the limit.

What do you suggest we do when we find out how many God allows?

That argument is of “how many people can the earth support” is a false argument. If you believe that God is our creator, that he is the one who created the earth and created man, that he told us to be fruitful and multiply and did not place a limit on that anywhere, then we must believe that the earth can support as many people as he will allow us to give birth to.

I can’t speak for every instance of famine and disease, but whenever these things appear in the Bible, it is always in response to man’s sin. We live in a fallen world and thus we have terrible tragedies such as famine and disease, natural disasters and of course, war. But we know that was not God’s original intention. His original intention was the Garden of Eden, but our first parents blew that one for us.

To believe that we must limit the number of people being born is completely against God’s plan for us, it is of the devil, and that is why the Church condemns it. God wants as many people in his Kingdom as possible, and the only way for that to happen is for us to procreate.

Mary

 

[Brooklyn]

Humans are “resources” in the sense that they are the most valuable thing that a nation (or any organization) has. They are what make it great. Humans do the work, have the ideas, make the art, inspire each other, love each other, nurture the future generations, invent the new technologies, make IT happen, whatever IT is. People are the whole point of doing whatever it is they are doing.

The idea that humans are a drain on resources is a modern fallacy. Look at China and India. While a lot of “modern, progressive” thinkers would say they have too many people, they are booming and growing and starting up space programs and making things happen. It seems like a large population isn’t hurting them any, I suspect that it is just the opposite; several million people pulling in the same direction are going to get somewhere.

I use the term “Human Resources” because it is (or was) popular in American business-speak. Smart companies know that the right people are worth way more in the long run, than the patents or the machinery or the real estate.

OK, that certainly makes sense and does not “dehumanize” mankind. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[luvmykids]

OK. You have common sense and the rest of us don’t.

No…not the rest of you, just the ones that believe in using artificial contraception.

 

[Contarini]

You must have me mixed up with another person on this thread, because I never accused anyone of spreading Satanic lies. Please get your facts straight.

I apologize. Brooklyn is the one who keeps dragging Satan in to this!

Also, I already remember discussing prudence myself in my last post, but you must have overlooked it.

I didn’t overlook it. I am going to keep mentioning prudence because that is what is at stake for me. I understand that since you think any decision to limit the size of one’s family is sinful, you don’t think that can be prudent. The point where we differ is in the claim that such a decision necessarily shows a lack of faith in God. One can justify any imprudent action in this way. So I’m going to keep talking about prudence as long as you abuse the concept of faith in God in order to try to keep the question of prudence off the table!

So it’s good, but only if it’s one or two.

Where did I say that? You take me to task (rightly) for ascribing to you things you did not say, but then you ascribe to me things that I did not say. Where I have given a hypothetical “prudent” size for a family, it was two or three or at least one of each sex, not one or two. (I’m an only child myself and would never say that parents should deliberately deprive their children of the experience of having a brother or sister, though I can see why they might choose to have one child naturally and one by adoption.) And I have made it clear that I am not a particularly strong advocate of population control. I do not criticize people who have large families. I criticize people who use bad logic and bad theology in order to shortcircuit a rational discussion of the question. I defend the *legitimacy *of having fewer children (not of having *no *children, which is not an option for married couples capable of procreating) and of taking the problem of overpopulation into account in that decision. That is all.

Now to the substance of your objection: as I keep saying, the goodness of life is not quantifiable. The fact that new life is good does not mean that we should bring as many new lives into the world as possible. I have repeatedly pointed out the absurdities (and contradictions with Catholic teaching) involved in that idea (it would compel us to devise artificial means of procreation, for one thing). I haven’t even touched on the cruelty to women involved in literally having as many children as possible by the *natural *method (with as short an interval between pregnancies as possible). Your position is subject to a fatal reductio ad absurdum, because you start from the untenable premise that if life is good then we should create as much of it as possible.

No, my whole point is that I do not feel that any responsible, married, loving, couple should be limiting the amount of children they have, based on fear of what could happen. You have no idea what will happen in the future that is only for God to know. You have no idea if this world will ever make it to 10 or 20 or 100 billion, because there are a lot of factors that could occur. Plagues, wars, natural disasters, armageddon…maybe even some chemical or biological warfare that renders most of us infertile. Who knows!

Indeed. That is why we should make the most prudent decision we can based on the information we have. And the information we have indicates that the present level of population is putting a strain on the earth’s resources, and that a much greater level will put a correspondingly greater strain. For precisely the reasons you give, I don’t think that this is as all-important an issue as many people claim. But it is a legitimate factor to be taken into account by married couples in deciding how many children to have (always subject to God’s providence, which can ordain “accidents”!).

God made us in a way that we procreate. But you are saying it is only good if it is one or two, or one of each sex, and then we should practice our “all knowing” prudence,

Straw man again. Of course our prudence is not all-knowing. That doesn’t mean that we should fail to exercise it.

and stop.[/QUOE]

No. At no point in this discussion have I ever said that married couples *should *stop at a particular point, and you need to stop claiming that I have said this. I have said only that a decision to have two or three children *may *be a prudent one.

ONly God knows the potential of each one of us. Let Him decide.

God did not make us rabbits or lemmings or voles, who procreate mindlessly. He made us rational animals. We should act rationally. Saying “let God decide” is actually a defiance of God’s will. God chose to give *us *the capacity to decide, within moral parameters.

Edwin