since the UN population gurus who are the first to advocate genocide when they panic, are now saying dwindling birthrates are a bigger problem in many countries, yeah you can take that to the bank. What is worth worrying about is whether the small percentage of people–us–who consume the largest percentage of the world’s consumable resources–that too would be us–have heard and embraced the Gospel particularly Matthew 25.I take it from your two posts that you do not believe population is not a probelm worth worrying about.
The statement is correct. Can you imagine one person building a car, and developing the fuel, oil, antifreeze, compressed air, rubber, etc, etc, etc…And then what road can he drive on? It takes a large popluation to build these things.
That’s the oddest statement I ever heard. I
now that is an odd statement, other than rotting vegetation what is missing? And the rotting vegetation has been replaced by new vegetation. We are silly think the rotten stuff was betterIN the last 100 years we have irrevocably used about 40-50% of the planet’s natural resources,
All energy is clean and renewable, efficiency comes in many forms, typically a large population is required to be efficient. Small groups are rarely efficient. Small populations maybe inefficient for long periods because their impact is small- isn’t that what you really mean?not including oil and coal. However, even if I thought abortion was the best moral choice a person could ever make, I don’t believe it would address the problem of overpopulation. The solution needs to focus on cleaner renewable energy and a vastly more efficient use of the resources we have left.
Population decline (sometimes known as depopulation) is the reduction over time in a region’s census. It can be caused for several reasons; notable ones include sub-replacement fertility (along with limited immigration), heavy emigration, disease, famine, and war.
Prior to the 20th century, population decline was mostly observed due to disease. The Black Death in Europe, the arrival of Old World diseases to the Americas, the tsetse fly invasion of the Waterberg Massif in South Africa, and the Great Irish Famine (1845–1849) have all caused sizable regional population declines. In modern times, the AIDS epidemic has caused declines in the population of some African countries. Less frequently, population declines are caused by genocide or mass execution; for example, in the 1970s, the population of Cambodia went through a period of decline due to wide scale executions by the Khmer Rouge regime.
According to 2002 reports by the United Nations Population Division[1] and the US Census Bureau,[2] population decline is occurring today in some regions. According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of developed world by the year 2050. The US Census Bureau notes that the 74 million people added to the world’s population in 2002 were fewer than the high of 87 million people added in 1989–1990. The annual growth rate was 1.2 percent, down from the high of 2.2 percent in 1963-64.
“Census Bureau projections show this slow-down in population growth continuing into the foreseeable future,” stated the Bureau’s brief on the findings. “Census Bureau projections suggest that the level of fertility in many countries will drop below replacement level before 2050… In 1990 the world’s women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes. By 2002 the average was 2.6.” Of course, this value still ensures the continuing rapid growth of the human population as a whole, even if some regions may decline.
Jim
We are at six billion and growing. A dwindling popuolation i not really a concern. Which is more likely? That a dwindling population will threaten us or that dwindling resources will threaten us.The statement is correct. Can you imagine one person building a car, and developing the fuel, oil, antifreeze, compressed air, rubber, etc, etc, etc…And then what road can he drive on? It takes a large popluation to build these things now that is an odd statement, other than rotting vegetation what is missing? And the rotting vegetation has been replaced by new vegetation. We are silly think the rotten stuff was better All energy is clean and renewable, efficiency comes in many forms, typically a large population is required to be efficient. Small groups are rarely efficient. Small populations maybe inefficient for long periods because their impact is small- isn’t that what you really mean?
50% of forests have been destroyed - where is your source I don’t believe you? Here is my source saying that you are wrongWe are at six billion and growing. A dwindling popuolation i not really a concern. Which is more likely? That a dwindling population will threaten us or that dwindling resources will threaten us.
50% of forests and wetlands have been destroyed. Clean water is now a scarce resource. Not sure what your rotting vegetation argument is supposed to support
We are at six billion and growing. A dwindling popuolation inot really a concern. Which is more likely?
That a dwindling population will threaten us or that dwindling resources will threaten us.
Resources are not dwinding. where to you think the water went to? All over the desert southwest populations are booming in areas where natural water supplies would only support maybe 100 people now a million live there.50% of forests and wetlands have been destroyed. Clean water is now a scarce resource.
that is basically what oil is. We can use electric cars, natural gas cars, not to mention better public transportationNot sure what your rotting vegetation argument is supposed to support
you can fit a single wide for every family on earth down here in Texas and still have room for the cows. we would have to pump water in from the Great Lakes however. The technology exists but it is not yet profitable or feasible, when the need exists, we can do it.Well lets see, the earth has 148,940,000 km² of land. My apartment is 600 square feet and I fit in it just fine.
lets see… 2.6 square km per square mile… 5280 feet in a mile… 600 square feet is 55 square meters, 18150 people per square kilometer to have each one apartment like mine,
2.7 trillion people can fit on the earth comfortably. More if you build the apartments in two or more story buildings.
You are on the right side of this issue, even though you appear to blind to the science. The science says that larger populations are good. You seem to believe the “science” stating that there is overpopulation, in spite of the larger body of science that says that more people is better.forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=268396
“Be fruitful and multiply” is a Biblical command that has never been countermanded. Overpopulation is God’s concern, not man’s, as a matter of faith. Certain elements of faith ask us to accept the incredible. Overpopulation is a real issue if left to its own devices, if God leaves us to our own devices solely. But, is it being irresponsible to trust in Divine Providence? The above link is my thread on “Overpopulation versus Divine Providence” that simply says the cause of Pro-Choice is just if one cannot rely on Divine Providence. The cause of Pro-Life is just, and the cause of Pro-Choice is un-just, if we can rely on Divine Providence and adhere to the Biblical command of “Be fruitful and multiply”. Those who hedge their bets are riding two horses, and lead our nations to confusion as we see in American politics in the way the human life issues have divided our country such that social conservatives versus social liberals can hardly debate in a civil manner.
It is just silly to say clean water is less scarce now. Whatever our technololgy is at this time the fact is that more people than not have inadequate supplies of it.50% of forests have been destroyed - where is your source I don’t believe you? Here is my source saying that you are wrong
abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606
Clean water is LESS scarce now because of the technology that was invented and developed because of large populations and economies of scale. Historically people were much more likely to get sick and die due to dirty water.
Silly? Back it up pal, if you are going to call my statements silly. Clean water is accessible by much more of humanity now than ever before.It is just silly to say clean water is less scarce now. Whatever our technololgy is at this time the fact is that more people than not have inadequate supplies of it.
My source for the deforestation numbers was the documentary “Planet Earth: The Future” I do not recall the name of the person who made the statement.
With all those forests burned down, thats going to help us grow a lot more food. All the carbon in the air from removing the forests gets translated into extra growth capacity for plants of all kinds, including crops. The more plants we remove, the faster nature makes new plants grow. And we can turn that into food.The decline in the rate of deforestation also does not address the damage already caused by deforestation. Global deforestation increased sharply in the mid-1800s.[42] and about half of the mature tropical forests, between 7.5 million to 8 million square kilometres (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million square kilometres (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until, 1947 [45][when?] covered the planet have been cleared.[43]
Deforestation By: Paul F. Maycock, WorldBookOnline
Ron Nielsen, The Little Green Handbook: Seven Trends Shaping the Future of Our Planet, Picador, New York (2006)
I think it is a humanitarian crime that we do not build sewage treatment plants in those areas. It is our refusal to properly treat waste which creates that problem.It is just silly to say clean water is less scarce now. Whatever our technology is at this time the fact is that more people than not have inadequate supplies of it.
My source for the deforestation numbers was the documentary “Planet Earth: The Future” I do not recall the name of the person who made the statement.
Ridgerunner is correct, when a forest is turned into a lawn it does have a negative environmental impact. Then when you look at the desert southwest you see million of plants above natural levels from man’s intervention into nature. Again you can find millions of gallons of water in the desert southwest also because of man’s action. In the future we will trap more water in reservoirs constantly increasing the supply of drinking water.The decline in the rate of deforestation also does not address the damage already caused by deforestation. Global deforestation increased sharply in the mid-1800s.[42] and about half of the mature tropical forests, between 7.5 million to 8 million square kilometers (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million square kilometers (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until, 1947 [45][when?] covered the planet have been cleared.[43]
Deforestation By: Paul F. Maycock, WorldBookOnline
Ron Nielsen, The Little Green Handbook: Seven Trends Shaping the Future of Our Planet, Picador, New York (2006)
Not true. You don’t need my links to refute this. Go to the EPA or the WHO website.Silly? Back it up pal, if you are going to call my statements silly. Clean water is accessible by much more of humanity now than ever before.
Works wonderfully until the salination levels make desert agriculture untenable.Ridgerunner is correct, when a forest is turned into a lawn it does have a negative environmental impact. Then when you look at the desert southwest you see million of plants above natural levels from man’s intervention into nature. Again you can find millions of gallons of water in the desert southwest also because of man’s action. In the future we will trap more water in reservoirs constantly increasing the supply of drinking water.