What is the solution to overpopulation that is not abortion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pitcairn17 said:
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?”
Click to expand...
The point of this is that the world is not overpopulated and that physically you could fit everyone into Texas. Don’t focus on the word comfortable. Focus on the point.
 
Montrose said:
The point of this is that the world is not overpopulated and that physically you could fit everyone into Texas. Don’t focus on the word comfortable. Focus on the point
Click to expand...
Then the word “comfortably” shouldn’t have been in the statement. Being ridiculous doesn’t help prove a point.
 
puer.dei said:
Then the word “comfortably” shouldn’t have been in the statement. Being ridiculous doesn’t help prove a point.
Click to expand...
Being sarcastic doesn’t help either. It sounds like you are just looking for something to criticise rather than engage in the discussion.
 
IF population growth was actually an issue, then public authority can encourage (but not force) the limitation of births through morally sound means (like periodic abstinence).
37.There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him. (39)
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The point is that people could physically fit in a geographic area of Texas. Then you have the entire rest of the planet for growing food, infrastructure, the growth of flora and fauna, etc. Basically if everything else besides people can’t fit on all of earth minus the state of Texas, that indicates a resource usage, distribution, and innovation problem, not necessarily a number of people problem.
 
neophyte said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tounge in cheek, but I probably would say get rid of Covid restrictions and it will take care of itself.
 
I don’t think that there really is overpopulation, as much as there is a disparity of where food/opportunity is and groups of people are.
 
Instead of abortion? Why not let the fresh human be born and knock off anyone over 55 yrs old. Like really, they already had 55 yrs to live. Give the new guy a chance to impact the world. (This is not a Catholic answer. However, the baby in the uterus is a human person like the 55 yr old, but younger.)
 
Elf01 said:
Tounge in cheek, but I probably would say get rid of Covid restrictions and it will take care of itself.
Click to expand...
I’m not seeing that the data supports that idea. Anthrax, maybe.
PennyinCanada said:
Why not let the fresh human be born and knock off anyone over 55 yrs old. Like really, they already had 55 yrs to live.
Click to expand...
Hey, I’m 59 and still have a lot to do! I prefer my odds with the “shoot every other person in line” strategy.

Logan’s Run was a lousy movie, the book was much better.
 
Last edited:
I think some Catholic’s stance on ‘overpopulation as a myth’ is tied to the Catholic stance on abortion. I don’t think they need to be tied together from a Catholic perspective. It was the overpopulation crowd that tied the two together in the first place. Catholics don’t need to play that game.

Overpopulation is beginning to become problematic in terms of resources and overall health. Anyone who lives anywhere near a metropolitan area could tell you that. And the rural places are all being used to grow genetically engineered crops. There is virtually no wild land left anywhere.

Pope Francis addressees land management concerns in general, but I’m not aware of him tying it to overpopulation, or if that’s even necessary. I think he could definitely push the ‘wise use of resources’ thing without telling people to manage their family’s growth a little better.
 
Last edited:
Guest1 said:
In an abortion dialogue with someone. I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question. Appreciate it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The very serious and very harmful danger of overpopulation propaganda is that it can and is used as a scapegoat for every and any resource problem, even resource problems from centuries ago or in antiquity, when the population was much lower. Overpopulation was used as a scapegoat in ancient Rome as well and the motivations were the same: avoiding one’s responsibilities.

Inadequate infrastructure, water, food, housing, healthcare, air quality, etc: it can all be scapegoated on the idea that there’s too many people. All of the ingenuity and creativity and work ethic and reform and most of all charity can be instantly vaporized under the argument that things would supposedly be easier if there were just fewer bodies. It diverts the issue away from the things that are actually hurting people and subsequently cause societal problems: corruption, pride, avarice, hypermaterialism, etc.

A comparison between Taiwan and mainland China is an easy example. While Taiwan consists of human beings and is far from perfect, you can see how much vastly better everything is when policies take responsibility for problems instead of scapegoating them on their own population.
 
Last edited:
Guest1 said:
In an abortion dialogue with someone. I’d like to hear catholic replies to this question. Appreciate it. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to a hypothetical overpopulation, or overcrowding in some region, or are you contending the earth is overpopulated now and what should be done now?
 
TK421 said:
Inadequate infrastructure, water, food, housing, healthcare, air quality, etc: it can all be scapegoated on the idea that there’s too many people. All of the ingenuity and creativity and work ethic and reform and most of all charity can be instantly vaporized under the argument that things would supposedly be easier if there were just fewer bodies. It diverts the issue away from the things that are actually hurting people and subsequently cause societal problems: corruption, pride, avarice, hypermaterialism, etc
Click to expand...
What concerns me about the arguments of those who say overpopulation is not a serious issue is that, like this comment, it restricts itself to the room to house people, feed people, and keep people healthy.

What it ignores is the devastating effect the growth of human population has has on the rest of the natural world. How many creatures must vanish, how many more trees must be felled, how many species must vanish because of the expansion of Man?

Not to mention the effect on the very climate of the planet.
 
PickyPicky said:
How many creatures must vanish, how many more trees must be felled, how many species must vanish because of the expansion of Man?
Click to expand...
Never mind, our ingenuity will mean that we can have Disney-designed electronic versions of them instead - android lions and wildebeests will roam the streets picking up litter, doing road repairs, stuff like that.
 
The opening poster doesn’t realize that “overpopulation” to come is no longer an issue. Instead, countries face a sharp decline in population in the future–see the report, “23 countries will lose half their populations by 2100,” at 23 countries will lose half their populations by 2100 » MercatorNet
“Overpopulation” is a call from years ago, which has been rendered moot by history.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
The opening poster doesn’t realize that “overpopulation” to come is no longer an issue.
Click to expand...
It’s a problem of resources - which would be more difficult do you think, persuading people in the sub-Sahara that they shouldn’t eat like Americans or have all the stuff that Americans have, or persuading Americans to live more like sub-Saharans?
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
TK421:
Inadequate infrastructure, water, food, housing, healthcare, air quality, etc: it can all be scapegoated on the idea that there’s too many people. All of the ingenuity and creativity and work ethic and reform and most of all charity can be instantly vaporized under the argument that things would supposedly be easier if there were just fewer bodies. It diverts the issue away from the things that are actually hurting people and subsequently cause societal problems: corruption, pride, avarice, hypermaterialism, etc
Click to expand...
What concerns me about the arguments of those who say overpopulation is not a serious issue is that, like this comment, it restricts itself to the room to house people, feed people, and keep people healthy.

What it ignores is the devastating effect the growth of human population has has on the rest of the natural world. How many creatures must vanish, how many more trees must be felled, how many species must vanish because of the expansion of Man?

Not to mention the effect on the very climate of the planet.
Click to expand...
But again, going back to my example above, overpopulation can be (and is) used as a scapegoat instead of actually fixing things. Being carbon neutral or carbon negative (among other things) isn’t impossible. It’s a tangible reality with the right amount of work and policies.

With more and more places netting a population lose, overpopulation propaganda has become pretty antiquated, but that doesn’t stop the topic from getting brought up, because it’s just basic human nature to blame other people or to blame society collectively instead of targeting the real causes.
 
Last edited:
The solution is Catholicism. No sex outside marriage, and a return to the great days of monasticism.
 
The west has had contraception for decades, if it was truly being used you wouldn’t seebas many abortions as we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top