What is the solution to overpopulation that is not abortion?

[Guest1]

In an abortion dialogue with someone. I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question. Appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Lea101]

Economic growth, women’s access to quality education, jobs and maternal health care, as someone here has mentioned. Birth rate usually drops then.

 

[Guest1]

I used some of your reply with I think a quote from St John Paul 2.

Others are still free to answer. Appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In addition to what Lea101 said, self-control also helps.

 

[Freddy]

In an abortion dialogue with someone. I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question. Appreciate it. Thanks.

Effective contraception would help. But then that’s not a Catholic response.

 

[Guest1]

Least you know it isn’t.

 

[TheIttyBitty]

It begs the question because it’s based on an ideology that may be subjective.

The question assumes there’s an overpopulation issue.

For Catholics, it makes us have to assume God is erring.

ETA: I’m not well versed in logical fallacies, so I’m open to being challenged.

 

[brown_bear]

Making more of the earth’s surface arable and improving the yields of that already cultivated.

No, abortion no, killing people is neither a Christian nor a human solution.

Of course, abortionists do not believe that the embryo and fetus are human beings.

But when all of us have been embryos or fetuses, if we had had a moment of awareness, we would have been happy to know that our family did not consider us a lump of cells, but human beings.

This is a thought that I share with the people present, I doubt that an abortionist is convinced.

 

[1ke]

First establish there is an overpopulation problem. There isn’t. There is a distribution of goods problem, a corrupt government problem, and opportunity problem. Not a population problem. Read the book The War Against Population by Jacqueline Kasun.

But if there WERE an overpopulation problem, those things mentioned above would be a start, innovation (we feed more people with free acres every year), education, immigration, etc.

Killing people is never a solution. We may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

 

[neophyte]

I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question.

There isn’t an overpopulation problem, but assuming there is then how about lining everyone up and shooting every second person? It’s not a very Catholic solution, but it’s morally equivalent to abortion.

 

[1cthlctrth]

There is NOT an “overpopulation problem”. We could fit the entire world’s population comfortably in the state of Texas.

 

[Bluebright]

I am also thinking that overpopulation is a myth…

I recently read that if people lived as closely together as they do in New York then everyone in the world would fit in Alaska. …leaving the rest of the world empty. There’s only 7.8 billion people it said. I wonder if its true. It certainly begs thinking about. I think what is the most likely is that there is no overpopulation but instead a selfish use of resources. The rich remain rich and the poor poor because few live gospel poverty. Very few…even amongst those vowed to it.
I just read Fr Thomas Dubays Happy are you Poor… and it certainly makes you think. The two are definitely linked. If people lived with less and shared more as Jesus taught then space would not be such a premium. Does one person really need a huge big house? Do 20 people need to live in one room? If we shared …then overpopulation would just be population. That’s my 2 cents worth.

 

[Montrose]

In an abortion dialogue with someone. I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question. Appreciate it. Thanks.

The world is not and never will be overpopulated. The problem has always been the inequitable distribution of resources.

 

[Aulef]

In fact, there is no such thing as global overpopulation. It can only happen locally or regionally at most.

 

[FiveLinden]

There is NOT an “overpopulation problem”. We could fit the entire world’s population comfortably in the state of Texas.

I, for one, am not going there.

Abortion has made a significant contribution to some population control programmes especially in the former Soviet countries. But contraception has made a bigger contribution.

Barrier methods of contraception are cheap, safe and effective but only if used and used properly every time. Abortion is often seen as a backstop for these methods.

The recent development of longer-term chemical contraception is driving down both birth and abortion rates in many parts of the world. At the same time surgical abortions are reducing because of the popularity of medical abortion.

All these technological changes are increasing the possibility of having populations decline at the same time as abortion, especially surgical abortion declines.

From my observation as an outsider the pro-life movement is not responding to these changes and is continuing to ‘shoot behind the duck’ (a vivid metaphor I heard today.

 

[PickyPicky]

I agree that population is likely to steady and then decline as/if health rates improve, and with easier access to contraception (yes, I know). But those who think the present population is not too high need to consider the despoliation of the earth which has happened and continues.

 

[Inquiry]

Solution is not the term you want to be using in this case. Because you set the problem up as the number of people rather than limited resources or space you’ve unintentionally dehumanized them. You’ve made it really easy to think of them as not people. You’ve also needlessly constrained the search for options. ‘How do we deal with too many X?’ predisposes us to think of reducing X not examining the problems with too many X.

A better format would be: “What do we do about the conflict between the population of the future and the constrained resources of the planet?”

 

[neophyte]

There is NOT an “overpopulation problem”. We could fit the entire world’s population comfortably in the state of Texas.

“Comfortably” is a stretch. The current estimate of 7.8 billion would give each person 960 square feet, which would make it a bit difficult to fit in things like roads. Add in all of the necessary infrastructure and you’d have turned Texas into one huge nasty city. Not comfortable in my book. I’ve been to NYC and, while I’m sure I could have fun there with money and a good guide, by the end of the weekend I’d be ready to leave.

 

[Jimbo]

I’d really question the overpopulation problem premise. Many nations (Japan, Russia, many European nations) are in a demographic crisis. Nations like China are heading that way. Having more old people than young is going to cripple the means by which they pay for their social services program.

But, TBH, if you want to reduce the population of a country, make it rich and make women educated. In most of those nations you have women who put off getting married and having children and so tend to just have fewer children.

 

[Pitcairn17]

There is NOT an “overpopulation problem”. We could fit the entire world’s population comfortably in the state of Texas.

Facile statistical trick. That puts everyone in the world in a 31 x 31 foot square with - as already pointed out - no provision for roads, access to food, or no way of growing food, or dealing with sanitation. How is that “comfortable?”