M
mymamamary
Guest
Exactly my point.
- Status
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
Google it.
This is way off topicOr is it imagined, like your claim I publicly stated on this forum I was not in a traditional marriage, and then refused to supply the evidence to back up this claim, despite being asked to do so. x
In addition, I simply do not have the time to find your quote from an inactive thread from five months ago.
Maybe ill start another thread on marriage in the future and you can chime in and remind yourself of what you said.
E
edwest2
Guest
Enjoy the graphs and tables.
census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpopinfo.php
As long as too many people in their child-bearing years don’t want to through the muss and fuss of having one of those, then zero population growth will continue in some so-called “developed” countries.
And then there’s the US.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255704/U-S-birth-rate-falls-record-low-immigrant-women-choose-smaller-families-aspire-join-upper-middle-class.html
Peace,
Ed
census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpopinfo.php
As long as too many people in their child-bearing years don’t want to through the muss and fuss of having one of those, then zero population growth will continue in some so-called “developed” countries.
And then there’s the US.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255704/U-S-birth-rate-falls-record-low-immigrant-women-choose-smaller-families-aspire-join-upper-middle-class.html
Peace,
Ed
W
wynnejj
Guest
When one says “modern” and suggests “not going away”, one misinterprets what constitutes “modern”. It always suggests a change from past ways.
W
wynnejj
Guest
The Church has a stance on what one is allowed to do morally with relation to overpopulation. The Church knows one can’t engage in sexual acts without an open-ness to children (basically telling God to stay out of the bedroom). It knows that we are asked to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. But it also acknowledges overpopulation in certain areas of the world, as quoted from Familiaris Consortio …
Basically, here is the revealed truth of faith, we’re still working out the reasons?
W
wynnejj
Guest
Total land area is 150 million sq km and about 50 million sq km are deemed agricultural land comprised of about 1/3 cultivatable for produce and 2/3 for grazing livestock. That is to say, there is approx 12.5 billion acres of agricultural land in the world (approx 250 acres per sq km). There are 7 billion people. That’s less than 2 acres per person to grow vegetables and graze livestock for each person’s annual food supply. Think you could personally self-sustain on that amount of property? The current world population growth is about 1% which if it were to remain at the level would take about 70 years to double the population, so a kid born today would depend on less than an acre for food by the end of their lifetime.
M
mymamamary
Guest
Goes to show you just how remote we are from the Earths Carrying capacity. Which, logically, unless the society advanced to such a stage that people were living 400 years (I shudder to even think of living that long), then I think we would get close, but until then, we are far, far, far, far, far away. It can’t happen. Death’s always need to be accounted for, which balances the scale…
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
In 1960 there were 3 billion people. Now there are 7 billion people. I am no mathematician, but 7 is greater than 3. I will be concerned when the numbers become lesser than NOT greater than. If in 20 years if people are like “OMG there are only 7 billion people in the world” I will be concerned, but it is estimated to be 8 billion people in 2025. That is growth.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
So you don’t have a source for your claim
Or you could admit you’re in error, made a false claim, and apologize.
I don’t expect any of that to happen of course.
Sarah x
C
CrimsonThorn
Guest
I do, just google it.So you don’t have a source for your claim
Here you go, check out my thread in which I address your requests for proof.Or you could admit you’re in error, made a false claim, and apologize.
I don’t expect any of that to happen of course.
Sarah x
I will say that I’m sorry you couldn’t remember, but perhaps it is you who would like to apologize to me now for insinuating that I am a liar?
W
wynnejj
Guest
If you are accepting my analysis and coming to the conclusion that 1 to 2 acres if far, far away from Earth’s Carrying capacity, then my view comes to a far different conclusion when thinking in terms of feeding people. If population doubles in 70 years, it will quadruple in 140 years, and go 8 times in 210 years. So starting at 2 acres per person, it will become 1 acre per person in 70 years, a half acre in 140 years, and a quarter acre in 210 years. How things will really transpire is anybody’s guess, but I’m simply trying to point out that Earth’s Feeding capacity could be severely stressed in say 200 years.
M
mymamamary
Guest
However, people die. As much as we want to say that we are medically advanced, we are still dying. Dying is what balances the scale.
M
manualman
Guest
Not even wild eyed doomsayers like Ehrlich predict that global population will double in the next 70 years. Have you even looked at anyone’s links? Even the UN demographers (who believe in an unsupported, magical recovery to 2.1 TFR for industrial and post-industrial societies) predict that global population will plateu well before 100 years are up. Not one nation on earth has a rising TFR trend and every single nation on earth with a TFR above replacement is trending downwards. As yet, there has never been a country that completed the post-industrial TFR drop to below replacement that returned to a sustained 2.1 TFR level (other than some outlier years).
As I believe I noted above, the problem with demographics is that there is a 70 year delay between cause and effect. Add people the poster above (can’t recall the name) who believes we should actively continue population reduction efforts until global population actually declines and you see why we people like me are alarmed. If you wait until populations actually start to decline, you’re 70 YEARS past the start of the trend! That’s a runaway freight train by then.
The nice thing about modern agriculture is that it’s rather more efficient than your home garden. Could I feed my family of 5 with 8 acres of garden? Probably not. But 8 acres of professionally managed fields would be more than enough to make my family morbidly obese if we so chose.
W
wynnejj
Guest
That’s the point. It is not balancing the scale. Population growth is based on the net result of babies born in a given year minus the number of people who died that year. We are world-wide still having more babies each year than those that die that year, despite the fact that the opposite is the case in many developed nations.
M
manualman
Guest
un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Btw, this is not simply unsupported opinion. The above is the official UN long term study results and projections. It’s long, but the best way to get a first feel is to scan it and just read the graphs, which are excellent. Their low range projections assume that after 2030 or so, developed nations will have a modest rise in TFR to (IIRC) around 1.9 (up from the ~1.65 they average today). The medium case assumes that developed counties recover to 2.1 TFR and the high case is a pipe dream in which TFR in developed countries goes positive again.
IMO the low range is most likely given the history of developed nations in which contraception is embraced as a social positive. There is no empirical basis upon which one can argue that a return to 2.1 will broadly occur. In my admittedly amatuer, but informed opinion, Earth will only briefly (if ever) see 9 billion people. Shortly after that, the numbers will decline indefinately.
Btw, this is not simply unsupported opinion. The above is the official UN long term study results and projections. It’s long, but the best way to get a first feel is to scan it and just read the graphs, which are excellent. Their low range projections assume that after 2030 or so, developed nations will have a modest rise in TFR to (IIRC) around 1.9 (up from the ~1.65 they average today). The medium case assumes that developed counties recover to 2.1 TFR and the high case is a pipe dream in which TFR in developed countries goes positive again.
IMO the low range is most likely given the history of developed nations in which contraception is embraced as a social positive. There is no empirical basis upon which one can argue that a return to 2.1 will broadly occur. In my admittedly amatuer, but informed opinion, Earth will only briefly (if ever) see 9 billion people. Shortly after that, the numbers will decline indefinately.
W
wynnejj
Guest
What’s your point? Hurray for postponing families and limiting family size voluntarily in ever increasing measures over time. Now if we could only get the secular world to understand that the ends don’t justify the means when it comes to contraception, sterilization & abortion.
When discussing the religious significance of world population measures with regards potential overpopulation, why is it that so many religious debaters simply state there is no potential for overpopulation based on world resources? Why is it that they use the measures taken by secular society to illicitly limit family sizes in defense of … see, there’s no potential for overpopulation. It’s like driving towards a brick wall, and because we put on the contraceptive brakes, the religious debaters simply say … see, I don’t think we will ever hit that wall.
J
JimG
Guest
It seems noteworthy to me that the places which are doing best economically are those with the highest population densities—places like New York City, Tokyo, Honk Kong. The places which do worst are those with unsustainably low population densities. I can think of any number of small Kansas towns which are all but defunct because of declining population. The U.S. grew economically as a result of the population boom following WW-II.
Now, the trends are clear. Fertility rates are declining everywhere. Economic decline will inevitably follow.
Resources are never static. Populations which depended on hunting and gathering thought that the land couldn’t support much more of them either, so did early subsistence farmers. Resources increase by innovation, creativity, and invention, and those things are accomplished by the ultimate resource—human beings.
In any case, we will soon be looking back wonderng why we ever worried about population growth, as we are faced with a shortage of people.
Now, the trends are clear. Fertility rates are declining everywhere. Economic decline will inevitably follow.
Resources are never static. Populations which depended on hunting and gathering thought that the land couldn’t support much more of them either, so did early subsistence farmers. Resources increase by innovation, creativity, and invention, and those things are accomplished by the ultimate resource—human beings.
In any case, we will soon be looking back wonderng why we ever worried about population growth, as we are faced with a shortage of people.
M
manualman
Guest
You miss the point. The point is NOT that earth has no limits to her capacity or that we could never reach a point of inability to feed ourselves. The point is that we are worried about the WRONG problem. To use your analogy, our speeding car is about a mile from the brick wall and the gas tank contains only fumes: crashing into it at speed is not a realistic worry. It’s the long walk home we actually need to worry about.
Look at my link. Explosive population growth is almost OVER. It was never a long term problem. It was a phenomenon of the transition between poor, rural agrarian society and wealthy industrial society. The economic system of industrial society self-regulates population (perhaps overly so). This religious person is merely pointing out that the third world doesn’t have an overpopulation problem, they have a poverty, education, infrastructure and government problem. Solve those and population levels will take care of themselves. Promotions to induce those people to have less babies are a self serving substitute for the assistance they ACTUALLY need.
W
wynnejj
Guest
“Fertility rates” are decling everywhere. What does that mean? Less sperm & eggs. Less potent sperm & eggs. Less sexual activity. Or, widespread contraception, sterilization & abortion.
Resources increase by innovation, creativity and invention. What does that mean? Could you restore the “Sahara Forest”? “What?”, you say to the logger applying for a job. "Don’t you mean the “Sahara Desert”? He replies, “Well it is now? Do I get the job?”.
You say, “Well, what we really need is turn the Sahara Desert into a Sahara Forest?”. Farmer says, “No problem. I’ll need a large amount of petrol for fertilizer to renew the soil, since it is unsuitable agricultural land without our innovative, creative invention of fertilizer based on this non-renewable resource. After we get it back into a proper forest, we will have to harvest more reasonably so that our consumption demanded by high population doesn’t overtake our supply by sustainable forestry without reliance on non-renewable resources.”
Well, we’ll need population to implement these plans whose issues are posed by population concerns.
My point in all these arguments is that I disagree that there isn’t a brick wall in term of overpopulation, but more importantly, population growth must match the supply & demand requirements. That is, I disagree that there is no need for the concept of population control. The argument should be the ethical means of achieving those ends.
We have that answer, which is the Church’s concept of “responsible parenthood”. I disagree that potential overpopulation is a myth, and suggest that the Church recognizes this fact. If one reads Humanae Vitae, one realizes that one of the serious reasons to ethically limit family sizes that is cited is the consideration of “society” along with spouses, family and Church.
M
mymamamary
Guest
Like I said a few posts ago, You could have fit the entire population into the State of Texas with with 6.8 Billion. Imagine how vast the world must be then. That would have left Africa, Asia, Europe, the rest of the U.S, all of Canada, South America, Australia etc DEAD EMPTY. Thats a scary thought. There isn’t a lot of us human beings then.
- Status