What do we do when there are too many people on the planet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Taking a look at current fertility rates it would seem as if the problem is fixing itself.
 
Hello.

How many is too many? Are you putting a limit towards how many human souls should exist? That’s the sort of question that’s caused some problems before → like the Holocaust, China’s one child policy, etc., ad nauseum…

I wonder if you’re asking the right question.

My two cents.
 
I want be one of the first colonies to go out into the great expanse. From what I’ve heard there are not that many stars with planets in this galaxy, but supposedly the Andromeda Galaxy, our nearby neighbor will have plenty, it’s only 2.5 million light years distant, so our expedition will be one of the first to leave for Andromeda. Should be fun.

If any of you might be interested in coming just message me, and I’ll get you in touch with the mission coordinator.


This is Neptune, the fourth largest planet in our solar system, some researches in the alliance discussed going here, but most say it’s not feasible because it is so gaseous, among other things.
 
Last edited:
Hello.

How about if whoever is worried about the size of the population gives up their life first to ease things up. Any takers?

Just a random thought… and I am not by any means in favor of this.
 
What makes you think “too many people on the planet” is an issue God expects us mere mortals to solve? God created the heavens and earth, seas and sky, and yes, us humans too, all of them, in His own image. I’m pretty sure He’s got this.
 
You want a truthful answer to your question??

OK, fine.

I warn you, though. It is a sobering reality…
 
anon65111186 said:
Terribly wrong there, nomatter the type of contraception, its use has existed from Christian times though crudely, and so has the teaching against it.
Click to expand...
Uh, no sir. Until roughly 100 years ago there was onanism and abortifacients. That’s it. Anything else like “silphium” borders on myth and superstition.
And our present pope has been very clear that contraception and abortion are not the same thing, but given your statements about Francis, maybe that carries weight with you. Maybe it doesn’t.
On December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI issued an Encyclical “On Christian Marriage,”…
Click to expand...
This is probably the first time in 1900 years of existence the Catholic Church actually broached the topic officially and it was largely in response to pan-Christian affirmation of the appropriateness of hormonal contraception.

The fact that his holiness claimed “uninterrupted Christian tradition” in his dealing with the topic is one of the primary factors that contributes to the continued discussion. How can there be uninterrupted tradition on an object that literally JUST came into existence at that point in history?

What’s possible, even likely, is that he erred in his estimation. After all, even Francis makes the distinction…

To that end, ask a bishop which encyclicals are infallible - and then watch them clutch their miters while they demur.
anon65111186 said:
If you are a Catholic you know it is ridiculous to say all that Jesus taught ended in 33AD.
Click to expand...
The point remains; a first century Jew couldn’t teach about the morality of an object that was nearly two millennia away from existing. To say otherwise is textbook anachronism.
anon65111186 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Here’s your best point. It is absolutely magisterial.

Just like the Holy Office’s condemnations of Galileo were magisterial. And ultimately wrong in many cases.
And he’s certainly not the only example of this.

Here’s where you’ll have to practice some Christian patience with me. I’m not a cradle Catholic and I grew up well-aware that the magisterial authorities of the Roman Catholic Church can and do err - just not in a way that affects the salvation of souls.

Both I and roughly 85% of child-bearing-age American Catholics think they have erred here. And not for the sake of our “ego” or “hedonistic pleasure” per the encyclical. It’s for the sake of sanity and the economic realities of raising children in the 21st century.

“Just use NFP!” Is a common counter. The fact that the Church doesn’t seem to allow this “from marriage to menopause” reveals a potential unaddressed hypocrisy in some that further underscores how untenable the ultra-traditional interpretation of the Church’s position on contraception ultimately is.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
This means some form of sterilization or BC. Just from a rational perspective.
Click to expand...
At what point did it become rational to sin?
Click to expand...
When the question being asked is "how do we limit human reproduction in a way that allows people to still express their primal sex drives (in an exclusively marital context, of course).
 
That will never happen. We are far from that as it is now. This is such a bogus argument. It has been proven that all the people in the world can fit in the state of Texas. So, the question is one of distribution not elimination.
 
No, no. I mean fertility fertility. Sperm count in western males is half of what it was 60 years ago.
 
We make war on each other for the dwindling resources.

We die in droves to diseases spread more easily because we are stacked up like chord wood.

We die of starvation, lack of water, etc.

Maybe, just maybe we get off this rock.
 
We go to space. Of course, anyone who feels that having children would lead to an overpopulation problem is free to take a vow of celibacy. “Be fruitful and multiply” was given to married couples; anyone can choose a life of celibacy instead. What is forbidden is to seek the benefits of marriage without committing to marriage, or to pervert the marital act with contraception.
 
Seeksadvice said:
We make war on each other for the dwindling resources.

We die in droves to diseases spread more easily because we are stacked up like chord wood.

We die of starvation, lack of water, etc.

Maybe, just maybe we get off this rock.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, the survival of the species depends on it.

Eventually a big ole’ rock WILL smash the planet and end complex life. We need to be elsewhere when it happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top