R
Raxus
Guest
There aren’t “too many”. That’s a media spin that is completely false. Stop buying into the fear-mongering, we’re fine.
- Status
R
RKS89
Guest
I was your ghost Murph.
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
I think upthread someone infallibly defined
1 billion as the right number. Me, I’m shooting for the trillion mark.
1 billion as the right number. Me, I’m shooting for the trillion mark.
R
RKS89
Guest
The most dangerous, in fact.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I’d love to have introduced you to an old work colleague of mine from Taiwan.
His favorite thing about living in America? No kidding?
He knew the food he was eating was actual food.
“We always innovate our way out” is a view that willfully ignores the famines of history. I refuse to espouse that view.
His favorite thing about living in America? No kidding?
He knew the food he was eating was actual food.
Akin to saying a bathtub is without capacity. This is fine, but many are unconvinced - particularly given that the agri-boom of the last 70 years has been almost exclusively petrol-fueled through fertilizers and machinery.
“We always innovate our way out” is a view that willfully ignores the famines of history. I refuse to espouse that view.
R
Rau
Guest
Can you elaborate? Given a finite planet - how do you see the long-term future trajectory of population, what will moderate population growth, such that “overpopulation” cannot arise? [Yes, the end of the world intervening would do it…]
R
Rau
Guest
Really? Can you advise more details eg. whose plan, circumstances, etc.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Well, it’s a subjective idea that depends entirely on what you’re willing to de-value in the name of squeezing a few extra homosapiens on the globe.
If you’re fine with the conversion of every inch of arable land into agricultural use and thereby extincting most of the flora and fauna on this planet, then we can squeeze several, several billion more!
Assuming that God meant for us to share the planet with these other species, then 1 billion would be a decent number, given that human population was 1 billion or fewer for all of human history until roughly 1800.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Probably it means the end is near. The more it is for us to watch and pray for it will come like a thief in the night, we do not when.
H
heidi_storage
Guest
The “famines of history” mostly happened in the past, when there were far fewer people. Today’s famines are pretty much political phenomena.
I am sure there is an upper limit as to how many people can fit on this planet. I am less sure that today’s experts know what that limit is.
China’s population control measures were horrifying, and are probably going to tank their country when the current generation begins to age. Japan is already having problems with its shrinking population.
I am sure there is an upper limit as to how many people can fit on this planet. I am less sure that today’s experts know what that limit is.
China’s population control measures were horrifying, and are probably going to tank their country when the current generation begins to age. Japan is already having problems with its shrinking population.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
There’s enough food on the planet to feed about 10 billion people.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Some would debate, but what else is new, right?
Again, agree. But I’d rather not try to find out.
They’re the heralds of future society.
Governments of the world will need to be able to find a way to fiscally function without the age-old assumption of an ever-growing tax base (as in, for every 2 people depending on “the system” there are more than 2 people paying in). As population growth levels off, an unprecedented balance is the implicit future. And I know the US isn’t ready for that…
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I’m in favor of creating warp drive. Rescue missions will be so much quicker.
I’m in favor of creating warp drive. Rescue missions will be so much quicker.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Catholic views from the laity actually are pretty liberal about birth control, the view of Christ and His Church on thr other hand are unchanging and unchangable. Ultimately it is Christ’s teaching on Birth Control. If you disagree about it, then you disagree with Christ Jesus.
No ifs ands or buts about it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As condoms and hormonal bc are collectively only a bit more than 100 years old or so (older references like Casanova’s are rather dubious), I’m fairly confident a Jewish Messiah from 30AD couldn’t have said anything about it. It’s like saying Christ had an opinion on the design of a Boeing 747…Vonsalza:
Catholic views from the laity actually are pretty liberal about birth control, the view of Christ and His Church on thr other hand are unchanging and unchangable.
The very real and expressed opinions of much of Paul VI’s pre-HV ponitifcal committee seem to disagree with you as well. Among many, many others.
Deus lo vult!
Zealotry aside, there are plenty of “ifs ands and buts”. Denial makes it no less true.
Of course, this is a carousel you and I have ridden extensively.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
It means we are going to have an aging population with declining birth rates.
S
StephieNorthCo
Guest
And then the Ponzi schemes, SS, insurance, care, etc come home to roost.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Terribly wrong there, nomatter the type of contraception, its use has existed from Christian times though crudely, and so has the teaching against it. The earliest Christian writers make that quite clear. But in our own times the prohibition of contraception was particularly emphasised by Pope Pius XI.
On December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI issued an Encyclical “On Christian Marriage,” in which he said: “Since openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible to declare another doctrine, the Catholic Church raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of Nature; and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” The Encyclical made it quite clear that Pope Pius XI was speaking officially as supreme pastor of the Church, that he intended a definite and irrevocable pronouncement on the moral issue involved, and that all Catholics everywhere must regard themselves as obliged in conscience to believe and hold the doctrine he thus proclaimed, whatever others might say to the contrary. Catholics, therefore, were left in no doubt as to where they stood in the matter; and, in fact, they would have been shocked had the Pope spoken in any other way.
About the commission, glad you brought it up
Your claim has been frequently said, mostly by those with little understanding of the position but also by some who knew better yet reprehensibly fostered the prejudices of the ill-informed. The facts are these. The Papal Commission had an advisory role only, with no authority to pronounce a verdict. It presented the Pope with two reports, a majority one favouring permission of the pill in certain circumstances; a minority one against any alteration of the law. Those favouring a change had not even a two-thirds majority. They amounted to about 55% and manifested among themselves many different approaches to the problem. The Commission arrived at nothing like a morally unanimous opinion.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
If you are a Catholic you know it is ridiculous to say all that Jesus taught ended in 33AD. He teaches through His apostles, through the Pope.
Pope Paul VI makes it clear that in his Encyclical he is exercising his supreme teaching-authority in the Church as willed by Christ and with the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit, for the safeguarding of faith and morals. The Pope does not exercise his supreme teachingauthority only when he speaks “ex cathedra” in technically infallible definitions. Vatican Council II, in its “Constitution on the Church,” n.25, declares that the Pope’s supreme teaching-authority, even when he does not speak “ex cathedra”, “must be acknowledged with reverence and sincere assent must be given to decisions made by him according to his mind and intention.” These are made known chiefly by the character of the document, the frequent stressing of the same doctrine, and the way in which the Pope speaks. On these three tests there is no room for doubt that the present Papal Encyclical contains the authentic teaching of the Catholic religion, gives us not merely a probability but a true moral certainty of its truth, and imposes upon us an obligation in conscience to regard it as proclaiming the genuine standard of Christian conduct.
- Status