Sustainable development and Population Reduction

[rpp]

drpmjhess:

Dmelosi, since 1859 we have run through about half the oil there is, and this is the easy oil in underground reservoirs. The harder oil is left – in shale, in the Athabaska tar sands, deep under the Arctic, etc. The problem is, when it costs a barrel of oil in energy costs to extract a barrel of oil, it will no longer be a winning proposition to extract it. The only way I see the Athabaska tar sands being developed is if we rapidly develop nuclear power generation capabilities to generate electricity to boil water to make steam to wash out the oil. Drilling is not an option in this instance.

I’m not as pessimistic as some, who see the extinction of the human species coming. We cannot avoid resource wars, famines, and epidemics, but I think we can minimize human suffering if we do five things:

1. Embark on a crash program of building nuclear power plants
2. Reconfigure suburbia to a more manageable commuting system (i.e., small cities surrounded by agricultural greenbelts)
3. Retrofit our transportation system to be based on electric trains rather than private automobiles
4. Completely revise our food production and distribution system, as it is now fatally dependent on oil and natural gas
5. Bring our population down from 6.5 billion to the solar carrying capacity of a global 2-3 billion by 2100

Best, Petrus

rpp:

And you claim to be working to reduce global population? How do you plan on doing that? China-like policies?

drpmjhess:

Absolutely not! No infanticide; no disrespect for female children. A comprehensive program of education in sustainable living, along with voluntary family size limitation, could bring the global population down to the solar carrying capacity by 2100. Whether or not people would be willing to do this is another question. Other options include genocide (e.g., Rwanda), but needless to say I don’t favor these. What we hope to do above all is to bring the population down precisely because we value human life, and we don’t want to see it reduced involuntarily by famine, epidemic, and resource wars.

drpmjhess:

RPP, I quite agree. I’m not sure how to start a thread on Catholic discussion of sustainability issues, but will check it out. Three brief addenda:

(1) I agree that “population reduction” sounds immoral, and I don’t mean to suggest that I favor shooting people or lacing the water supply with plutonium. Far from it. My colleagues love children, our onw and other people’s, and we hate to see them starve now and in the future. We favor comprehensive education on issues of ecology, carrying capacity, and resource economics; we also favor and gradual reduction through voluntary family size limitation. It’s no accident that my wife and I have two boys.

(2) I share your concern about the threat of uncontrolled Muslim procreation taking over Europe. I have Christian colleagues in Germany who live in terror at hearing Turks in Germany say – “Just you wait; in thirty years your cathedrals will be mosques, and Germany will be a territory of Turkey.”

So let’s continue this discussion on a sustainability thread – I have nothing to say about Greenspan.

Petrus

This was an exchange from another thread. It became an interesting sub-issue and I decided to start a separate thread.

 

[Keikiolu]

This was an exchange from another thread. It became an interesting sub-issue and I decided to start a separate thread.

Earth wise “carrying capacities” are always pseudo-scientific nonsense, driven by the agenda of Baal, which is the general principle of the “anti-life” mentality of the world these days (and every “days”).

Pop Reduction is an evil, pure and simple.

Allowing non-Christian pro-life activity to overwhelm “Christendom”, which would simply and effectively destroy it, is also a perpetual evil that needs to be dealt with.

How’s THAT for “politically incorrect”…!?

 

[buffalo]

Population control and all its blather boil down to one thing only - selfishness.

Currently the entire world’s population can fit in Texas. Solar carrying capacity - GEESSSHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[Bennie_P]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpmjhess forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
RPP, I quite agree. I’m not sure how to start a thread on Catholic discussion of sustainability issues, but will check it out. Three brief addenda:

(1) I agree that “population reduction” sounds immoral, and I don’t mean to suggest that I favor shooting people or lacing the water supply with plutonium. Far from it. My colleagues love children, our onw and other people’s, and we hate to see them starve now and in the future. We favor comprehensive education on issues of ecology, carrying capacity, and resource economics; we also favor and gradual reduction through voluntary family size limitation. It’s no accident that my wife and I have two boys.

(2) I share your concern about the threat of uncontrolled Muslim procreation taking over Europe. I have Christian colleagues in Germany who live in terror at hearing Turks in Germany say – “Just you wait; in thirty years your cathedrals will be mosques, and Germany will be a territory of Turkey.”

So let’s continue this discussion on a sustainability thread – I have nothing to say about Greenspan.

Petrus

**This all sounds so familiar **

Malthusian Eugenics
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”," particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:*All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.*Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the *racially inferior, *and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

And a little bit superioristic - to say the lest

It doesn’t sound immoral, it sounds santanic.:knight2:

These ideas are nothing new …

Thomas Malthus
An Essay on the Principle of Population
An Essay on the Principle of Population,

 

[Sr_Sally]

Currently the entire world’s population can fit in Texas.

I hear this all the time and have no idea what it really means. Can we all live there? Or just have a couple square feet to stand? If the entire world’s population moved to the US, could we all really live here? In apartments or the like? Just trying to get a sense of how populated the world really is. I’m sure there’s lots of places that people couldn’t really live–deserts, etc. But around here we all have WAY lots of room.

 

[FLCathMom]

I hear this all the time and have no idea what it really means. Can we all live there? Or just have a couple square feet to stand? If the entire world’s population moved to the US, could we all really live here? In apartments or the like? Just trying to get a sense of how populated the world really is. I’m sure there’s lots of places that people couldn’t really live–deserts, etc. But around here we all have WAY lots of room.

From what I’ve heard it means we could all fit in Texas five-to-a-house in neat little blocks with roads to drive through.

 

[rpp]

I have just done some math here is the result.

Population 6,000,000,000
Family of 6 Space 2,000
Units Required 1,000,000,000
Buffer Space 7,500
Street Space 1,000
Space required 8,500,000,000,000
Sq. Miles Required 304,896
Length and width of city 552 x 552 miles

 

[rpp]

I have just done some math here is the result.

Population 6,000,000,000
Family of 6 Space 2,000
Units Required 1,000,000,000
Buffer Space 7,500
Street Space 1,000
Space required 8,500,000,000,000
Sq. Miles Required 304,896
Length and width of city 552 x 552 miles

By “buffer” space, I mean yard, driveway, garden, community parks, etc. Street space is one lane of street in front of the home from one edge of the property to another.

I chose family of 6 because I think that is close to the world-wide average of the number of people living under a single roof (not the USA average of 4.2).

The space mentioned is in square feet. This also assumes stand-alone single-story structures. If you were to make two story structures standard, that would reduce the space requirement by about 60% as the buffer and street space needed would be cut in half and the housing square footage would be eliminated because it became vertical.

 

[drpmjhess]

It doesn’t sound immoral, it sounds santanic.:knight2:

These ideas are nothing new …
]

I agree - eugenics is unconscionable. What would you estimate the human carrying capacity of the planet to be? Is it infinite?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

I hear this all the time and have no idea what it really means. Can we all live there? Or just have a couple square feet to stand? If the entire world’s population moved to the US, could we all really live here? In apartments or the like? Just trying to get a sense of how populated the world really is. I’m sure there’s lots of places that people couldn’t really live–deserts, etc. But around here we all have WAY lots of room.

Good points, Sr Sally. But all the world could not live sustainably in Texas. They could live for a day or two, but they would eventually need food and water.

Petrus

 

[Roslyn]

I think the world is headed for a widespread ecological meltdown of global proportions. I believe that this will be the end of life as we know it, and probably has Biblical implications of the endtimes variety.I think it’s all pre-ordained. At that time Jesus Christ will gather all his sheep into Heaven.

 

[Roslyn]

You just have to be realistic. Civilizations have collapsed due to environmental degradation and over population in the past. Eventually it will be a worldwide event because we are now a globally interdependant people. It could happen in this century when we run out of fossil fuels.

 

[drpmjhess]

You just have to be realistic. Civilizations have collapsed due to environmental degradation and over population in the past. Eventually it will be a worldwide event because we are now a globally interdependant people. It could happen in this century when we run out of fossil fuels.

Roslyn, Jared Diamond takes a similarly grim perspective in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. As a Roman Catholic, even when confronting dismal realities about ecological meltdown, I have to take a theologically hopeful and prophetic approach (for my kids if for no other reason!). Regarding your other post, I agree that it will be hard for everyone to control their procreation, and demographic issues are very delicate – economically, religiously, socially and culturally. It’s no accident that my wife and I limited our children to the sustainable rate of two, but not everyone will do this.
Petrus

 

[Ridgerunner]

I recall reading how, in the 19th century, the pollution caused by horses was immense; just unbelievable, and feeding them took a massive portion of the grain supply. So, perhaps with horse-driven technology, the sustainable population was already at its peak; perhaps a trifle past it. Certainly, a population like we have now would have been unsustainable with a horse-based technology.

Today, we have a lot more people, a lot better sanitation and much more food. But of course, the technology is different.

Despite its draconian population control measures, the population of China is still going up, (for now) notwithstanding that they live far better than a smaller number did under Mao. The technology is different.

Tomorrow, how does anyone know human beings CAN’T, through technology, sustain a larger population than we have now in states that are reasonably governed and technologically advanced? The answer is: No one does. And nothing in highly developed states suggests it.

 

[Erich]

It could happen in this century when we run out of fossil fuels.

I thought we were supposed to run out of fossil fuels at least twice already since the 1970’s

Actually what we’re running out of is fossil fuels available at today’s prices. The Europeans were running out of $2.50 a gallon gasoline around the time we were running out of $1 a gallon gasoline. Now we’re low on $3 a gallon gasoline while the Europeans are low on $7.50 a gallon gasoline.

 

[Erich]

They could live for a day or two, but they would eventually need food and water.

The math in an earlier post already allows for roads… obviously it wouldn’t be too much of an exercise to also add in an allowance for grocery stores etc.

And where would all the food and water come from if the entire population of the world were to move to an area the size of the state of Texas? Why, from an area the size of the rest of the world, of course!

 

[Roslyn]

I thought we were supposed to run out of fossil fuels at least twice already since the 1970’s

Actually what we’re running out of is fossil fuels available at today’s prices. The Europeans were running out of $2.50 a gallon gasoline around the time we were running out of $1 a gallon gasoline. Now we’re low on $3 a gallon gasoline while the Europeans are low on $7.50 a gallon gasoline.

Back in the 1970’s it was predicted to run out by the 2050’s. I personally think the government hides the facts about this currently to avoid mass hysteria, while they work on a solution. The Bush administration has funded some explorations and research into alternative energy sources.

However, fossil fuels are also vital to most of the chemicals we rely on, including fertilizers. Another limited resource is water, often overlooked when discussing this subject.

 

[kevstar31]

As resources become more sacarce the prices for them will go up. So as a result less children would be born because less people will be able to afford to take care of children. While there are execeptions this could be a way that the population is regulated with out need for intervention.

 

[Roslyn]

As resources become more sacarce the prices for them will go up. So as a result less children would be born because less people will be able to afford to take care of children. While there are execeptions this could be a way that the population is regulated with out need for intervention.

Why is it, then, that more properous nations have fewer children? Poor nations keep having them, even though they are ill equiped. Should the well off nations quit bailing them out?

 

[rpp]

As resources become more sacarce the prices for them will go up. So as a result less children would be born because less people will be able to afford to take care of children. While there are execeptions this could be a way that the population is regulated with out need for intervention.

This assertion is contradicted by observed human behavior. The opposite appears to be true. Look at birth rates in the industrialized nations compared to birth rates in other countries, such as African nations, where periodic famines are endemic.