The Population Bomb.

[Linusthe2nd]

The following link will lead you to important information on the impact of contreception/abortion on the social/economic/moral future of the World. As these sources inform us we have been comitting demographic suicide since the end of WW2 and now it is time to pay the piper. And how he will be paid is evident from the insane social policies being adopted by world governments. The secular ideologues are still setting policy. Even Russia, facing the most serious problem, is still schizophrentic in its policies - trying to encourage births on one hand but supporting demographic suicide with the other. But at least she is doing something positive. The West has yet to do even that.

demographicbomb.com/trailer3.html

 

[Nimzovik]

A very interesting site. Thanks for this.

 

[mymamamary]

There is no such thing as overpopulation

www.overpopulationisamyth.com

Overpopulation was a myth created by the relativistic, greedy sceularists. I heard that Ted Turner would like the world at 2 billion. HYPOCRITE!! He owns the most land in the Country, cares about the Bison, yet thinks that the human race is something to stomp on. Oh, how disugsting thou art to me, secularism. Bill gates goes over to Africa and hands out contraception, when thats NOT THE PROBLEM. The Problem is that THEY ARE HUNGRY. Contraceptives will not fill an empty stomach, nor will it drill water out of the ground. These people are agents of satan. Yes, I will take the infraction. I need a time out, this sheer global stupidity gets me so wound up…

worldundercontrol.com/2012/06/03/ted-turner-confronted-over-population-control/

 

[edwest2]

There is no such thing as overpopulation. They tried to sell this baloney in 1968. Here is the 1971 version:

amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Sierra-Club-Ballantine-Book/dp/B000E1COTA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359835313&sr=1-1&keywords=population+bomb+1968

"Sshh. Don’t tell anyone. But “while you are reading these words, four people will have died from starvation. Most of them children.” Seventeen words. Four deaths. That statistic is from a cover of Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 provocative “Population Bomb.”

Has anyone forgotten the largest demographic in the US, the fake name “Baby Boom,” which includes those born between 1946 to 1964? Apparently so.

More fear-mongering.

Peace,
Ed

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I remember when I was in college during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s that India and China were heading for disaster because of over-population. Starvation was cited to be the result of having too many people!
Since that time, India and China have both modernized their agricultural system and have vastly improved their food distribution systems, so we no longer hear of starvation in those countries.
That hasn’t deterred the academic pundits from trying to sway impressionable youth to their perverted viewpoints! Nothing has changed with their Weltschmertz viewpoint in the past 60 years!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Soon after the mindless decision of Roe vs Wade a former President of Missourians for Life, Frances Frech, wrote a very prophetic little book called the " The Great American Stork Market Crash ( 1973, Liguorian Books ) which predicted what is happening today. It was a direct answer to Paul Erlich’s " The Population Bomb. " And unlike his predictions, hers has come true. Frances was a great Lady and I think the book is still very timely, it is probably still available on the Pro-Life circuit.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Does the Church actually have an official stance on the issue of overpopulation?

I’m not terribly well versed in this issue, but I have a hard time accepting that overpopulation is a myth or non-threat. The statistics are there, the human population has boomed, especially after the industrial revolution. The resources of the world aren’t limitless, and it’s not like land mass is expanding to accommodate more people. I’d need to be convinced (perhaps with hard scientific evidence or an official church teaching) that overpopulation isn’t a threat to the sustainability of human life on Earth.

On the issue with Bill Gates, I think his intentions were to slow the spread of HIV/aids. Not saying that I agree with his actions (in fact I agree with you that feeding the starving would be a more pertinent issue), just that he wasn’t trying to stop the African peoples from reproducing but rather to curb the advance of the HIV virus.

Also, the assertion that China and India don’t struggle with hunger and starvation issues anymore is completely unfounded. Hunger is something we still deal with in the United States, it is still a global problem, and is something every Catholic should consider if they truly mean to model their life after Christ.

Is there a possibility that we as Catholics put too much emphasis on procreation and not enough emphasis and protecting and improving life for those souls who are already here? Once again, if anyone could cite some official doctrine on the matter that would be helpful.

 

[mymamamary]

Does the Church actually have an official stance on the issue of overpopulation?

I’m not terribly well versed in this issue, but I have a hard time accepting that overpopulation is a myth or non-threat. The statistics are there, the human population has boomed, especially after the industrial revolution. The resources of the world aren’t limitless, and it’s not like land mass is expanding to accommodate more people. I’d need to be convinced (perhaps with hard scientific evidence or an official church teaching) that overpopulation isn’t a threat to the sustainability of human life on Earth.

On the issue with Bill Gates, I think his intentions were to slow the spread of HIV/aids. Not saying that I agree with his actions (in fact I agree with you that feeding the starving would be a more pertinent issue), just that he wasn’t trying to stop the African peoples from reproducing but rather to curb the advance of the HIV virus.

Also, the assertion that China and India don’t struggle with hunger and starvation issues anymore is completely unfounded. Hunger is something we still deal with in the United States, it is still a global problem, and is something every Catholic should consider if they truly mean to model their life after Christ.

Is there a possibility that we as Catholics put too much emphasis on procreation and not enough emphasis and protecting and improving life for those souls who are already here? Once again, if anyone could cite some official doctrine on the matter that would be helpful.

www.overpopulationisamyth.com

Overpopulation is a radical leftist myth, designed to keep things such as abortion legal…

Its a Nazi scam designed to eliminate those who are weaker, poorer, disabled, unwanted etc.

Its a crock. Its a sinful, idiotic, evil myth/excuse created by satan to destroy souls and to kill the innocent. Don’t buy the myth. As for Mr. Gates, Contraceptives is NOT the way to curb HIV. When will these people wake up to what the Holy Father has to say. The Holy Father went to a big conference on aids. Everyone brought condoms and the Holy Father brought one word. “Abstinence”. Problem solved. Contraceptives and condoms are NOT going to curb the HIV rate because contraceptives only FURTHER the idea that sex is ok because the condom protects me, (Which btw, does not, the rate for infection is still substanially high) this is absurd thinking. Mr. Gates should dig wells, build villages and teach the people how to fish, farm etc. He is creating another problem, not solving any.

 

[atheistgirl]

www.overpopulationisamyth.com

Overpopulation is a radical leftist myth, designed to keep things such as abortion legal…

Its a **Nazi scam **designed to eliminate those who are weaker, poorer, disabled, unwanted etc.

Its a crock. Its a **sinful, idiotic, evil myth/excuse **created by satan to destroy souls and to kill the innocent. Don’t buy the myth…

… Mr. Gates should dig wells, build villages and teach the people how to fish, farm etc. He is creating another problem, not solving any.

It’s difficult to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation with so much hyperbole.

The PRI have their own, rather blatant, agenda.

You know there’s a difference between having enough space, and having enough resources, or being able to get enough resources to that space, to support those occupying that space, right?

Overpopulation is no myth.

Mother Earth does have her limitations.

Sarah x

 

[JimG]

The greatest threat for the future will not be overpopulation, but underpopulation. A society with a less than replacement level fertility rate will decline and have consistent problems of economic sustainability. After all, people are also a resource. In some respects, people are the ultimate resource.

(That’s one reason I find all the worry of immigration, legal or not, to be misplaced. With a declining fertility rate, the U.S. and many other nations will have to depend on immigration to sustain themselves economically.)

 

[mymamamary]

It’s difficult to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation with so much hyperbole.

The PRI have their own, rather blatant, agenda.

You know there’s a difference between having enough space, and having enough resources, or being able to get enough resources to that space, to support those occupying that space, right?

Overpopulation is no myth.

Mother Earth does have her limitations.

Sarah x

Overpopulation is a myth. The huge overwhleming majority of the world (Western part) is not having enough kids to even meet the REPLACEMENT level, let alone growth. Spain is statistically supposed to be dead in 20 years or so with their birth rate. Canada has one of the lowest birth rates in the WORLD. We have 38 million people living on the second largest land mass in the world. We could fit all of Canada into New York State. back when the world was at 6.8 Billion people, and this is true, we could have fit ALL of these people into the State of Texas. Everyone would have had a townhouse sized property or so. That would have left the rest of North America, all of South America, Africa, Europe and Asia COMPLETLEY DEAD empty. Ghost town empty. The World has PLENTY of resources to support life, even still. Its just a matter of greed. Its a matter of greed and Machiavallaen/Nazi philosophy. (See www.overpopulationisamyth.com)

 

[mymamamary]

The greatest threat for the future will not be overpopulation, but underpopulation. A society with a less than replacement level fertility rate will decline and have consistent problems of economic sustainability. After all, people are also a resource. In some respects, people are the ultimate resource.

(That’s one reason I find all the worry of immigration, legal or not, to be misplaced. With a declining fertility rate, the U.S. and many other nations will have to depend on immigration to sustain themselves economically.)

Some of the EF Parishioners were talking about this after MASS. The U.S is almost at the point that it depends on the illegal immigration of the Hispanics to sustain the Birth rate/population. So where is the overpopulation?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

It’s difficult to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation with so much hyperbole.

The PRI have their own, rather blatant, agenda.

You know there’s a difference between having enough space, and having enough resources, or being able to get enough resources to that space, to support those occupying that space, right?

Overpopulation is no myth.

Mother Earth does have her limitations.

Sarah x

Even though the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, France all need and rely on immigrants to keep their populations up because they are so under populated. Mother Earth isnt anywhere near her limits.

 

[mymamamary]

Even though the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, France all need and rely on immigrants to keep their populations up because they are so under populated. Mother Earth isnt anywhere near her limits.

I Second this

 

[manualman]

Does the Church actually have an official stance on the issue of overpopulation?

I’m not terribly well versed in this issue, but I have a hard time accepting that overpopulation is a myth or non-threat. The statistics are there, the human population has boomed, especially after the industrial revolution. The resources of the world aren’t limitless, and it’s not like land mass is expanding to accommodate more people. I’d need to be convinced (perhaps with hard scientific evidence or an official church teaching) that overpopulation isn’t a threat to the sustainability of human life on Earth.

The church learned centuries ago that her jurisdiction and authority concern revealed truths and their interpretations, not willy nilly pronouncements on any given topic. God has not revealed the precise ‘sustainable carrying capacity’ of earth, so it is a matter of discernment and debate for which we must our intellects.

Here is a non-biased site that tells much of the story:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Long term demographics are ALL about total fertility rates (TFR). If women on average have more than 2 kids, the population WILL increase. If they on average have less, it WILL decrease. There is a time lag, of course (the human lifespan).

When you go to my link an alarming thing instantly becomes apparent. Virtually every industrialized, stable and prosperous nation on earth has a sub-replacement TFR. The ongoing population increases are ONLY due to the high fertility rates ongoing in countries not yet industrialized and due to the time lag (baby boomers aren’t dying off yet). The third world is very rapidly adopting Western attitudes about fertility as well.

It’s very clear from the data that there is SOMETHING about modern civilization that inherently militates towards sub-replacement fertility. We can argue about what that something is (I’d argue it is the contraceptive mentality that sex and babies are separate topics), but the facts on the ground are nearly incontrovertable: We’ve already passed an inflection point and dramatic population declines, especially in Western nations will be underway within just a few decades. It’s already happening in places like Russia and Japan.

 

[atheistgirl]

We could fit all of Canada into New York State. back when the world was at 6.8 Billion people, and this is true, we could have fit ALL of these people into the State of Texas.

Such comparisons are meaningless.

Its a matter of greed and Machiavallaen/Nazi philosophy. (See www.overpopulationisamyth.com)

Sorry.

I can’t take this seriously when I read stuff like this, so I’ll leave you to your hyperbole.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Even though the Netherlands, Germany, Greece, France all need and rely on immigrants to keep their populations up because they are so under populated.

Your source for this?

Or 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 three times?

Mother Earth isnt anywhere near her limits.

I didn’t say she was.

I said she had her limitations.

And she does.

Sarah x

 

[JimG]

The church learned centuries ago that her jurisdiction and authority concern revealed truths and their interpretations, not willy nilly pronouncements on any given topic. God has not revealed the precise ‘sustainable carrying capacity’ of earth, so it is a matter of discernment and debate for which we must our intellects.

Here is a non-biased site that tells much of the story:
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

Long term demographics are ALL about total fertility rates (TFR). If women on average have more than 2 kids, the population WILL increase. If they on average have less, it WILL decrease. There is a time lag, of course (the human lifespan).

When you go to my link an alarming thing instantly becomes apparent. Virtually every industrialized, stable and prosperous nation on earth has a sub-replacement TFR. The ongoing population increases are ONLY due to the high fertility rates ongoing in countries not yet industrialized and due to the time lag (baby boomers aren’t dying off yet). The third world is very rapidly adopting Western attitudes about fertility as well.

It’s very clear from the data that there is SOMETHING about modern civilization that inherently militates towards sub-replacement fertility. We can argue about what that something is (I’d argue it is the contraceptive mentality that sex and babies are separate topics), but the facts on the ground are nearly incontrovertable: We’ve already passed an inflection point and dramatic population declines, especially in Western nations will be underway within just a few decades. It’s already happening in places like Russia and Japan.

As you noted, we’ve already passed an inflection point. Nations will face decreasing population for an indefinite period. It’s doubtful that this can be reversed. It will mean a period of low or no-growth economically, even negative growth. Sort of the reverse of the economic boom that followed the baby boom of the 20th century. We will have to get used to a much different world, a world of old people and few kids.

 

[mymamamary]

Such comparisons are meaningless.

Sorry.

I can’t take this seriously when I read stuff like this, so I’ll leave you to your hyperbole.

Sarah x

Such comparisions are not meaningless. They are there to prove a point. The earth has its limits, but it is nowhere near those limits. So why all this crying about overpopulation when the statistics PROVE otherwise? At this point in time, we are NOT overpopulated. If you don’t believe that “hyperbolic” website then this should work

globalresearch.ca/bracing-for-demographic-winter-the-overpopulation-crisis/30694

and straight from the horses mouth so to speak, articles on the meetings held to discuss underpopulation.

un.org/esa/population/publications/popdecline/popdecline.htm

If that still is not sufficient and too baised for you to believe, then You are beyond help.

 

[manualman]

…
I said she [Earth] had her limitations.

And she does.

Sarah x

I don’t see anybody claiming that Earth has infinite resources. What people object to is the often said, more often implied message that Earth’s population is currently much too large and needs to be cut down considerably.

This is not a partisan or faith issue. Secular demographers virtually ALL recognize the validity of the “demographic transition” in which developing countries that gain access to modern medicine and education (especially women’s education) experience a rapid drop in TFR to at or below replacement rate. Nobody reputable in the demography world predicts that current population growth rates will continue for long. Nobody. Look it up. The UN website has some pretty good info on it.

Where I believe that demographers have gone off the rails is the unsupported faith they hold that the long term trend of subreplacement TFR in developed countries will magically correct itself and return to replacement rate in a few more decades. They take this on faith. Not only do they have no evidence it will happen, but they are ignoring the evidence that it won’t. Modern culture and economics punishes parenthood. That’s not going away.