World population explosion-human virus

[FightingFat]

I need some help with a way of looking at this. I have been winning the abortion argument- why wouldn’t I, the Catholic position is really the only position a sentient being could hold on the issue. The problem is I have been challenged with the idea of birth control, the idea that the world is running out of resources and that human beings are like a virus which spreads and devours the food source until there’s nothing left, then they die out.

There are some compelling social arguments to this way of thinking. Certainly the figures bear it out-

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of April 2009, the Earth’s population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.[1] World births have levelled off at about 137-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990’s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040.[5][6]

[Current World Population - The Population of the World](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)
1900 1.6 billion
1965 3.3 billion
2010 6.8 billion

Considering our stewardship of the planet, surely aimless and relentless procreation is neglecting that responsibility? OK I know that we are encouraged to be responsible, but I would like someone else’s perspective on this idea–Surely we have arrived at a point in history, where we realise that reproducing like rabbits is no longer required (in fact it is measurably harmful to us and the other species we share this limited space with) and that having non-reproductive sex is entirely harmless.

So is there anyone here who can help me to discuss this topic in an enlightened way, how Catholics look at these ideas and what we think about this problem.

Thanks!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I need some help with a way of looking at this. I have been winning the abortion argument- why wouldn’t I, the Catholic position is really the only position a sentient being could hold on the issue. The problem is I have been challenged with the idea of birth control, the idea that the world is running out of resources and that human beings are like a virus which spreads and devours the food source until there’s nothing left, then they die out.

There are some compelling social arguments to this way of thinking. Certainly the figures bear it out-

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of April 2009, the Earth’s population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.[1] World births have levelled off at about 137-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990’s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040.[5][6]

[Current World Population - The Population of the World](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)
1900 1.6 billion
1965 3.3 billion
2010 6.8 billion

Considering our stewardship of the planet, surely aimless and relentless procreation is neglecting that responsibility? OK I know that we are encouraged to be responsible, but I would like someone else’s perspective on this idea–Surely we have arrived at a point in history, where we realise that reproducing like rabbits is no longer required (in fact it is measurably harmful to us and the other species we share this limited space with) and that having non-reproductive sex is entirely harmless.

So is there anyone here who can help me to discuss this topic in an enlightened way, how Catholics look at these ideas and what we think about this problem.

Thanks!

You’re going to allow a Wikipedia article about population growth to make you think of humanity as a virus ravaging the virgin earth? Come on, now!

When someone makes an assertion like that, ask for their sources. I can just as easily make an unsubstantiated argument that there’s more than enough food and resources to go around.

Peace,
Dante

 

[FightingFat]

You’re going to allow a Wikipedia article about population growth to make you think of humanity as a virus ravaging the virgin earth? Come on, now!

No, not at all–I was just hoping that I could find some intelligent friends here who would help me work through this!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

No, not at all–I was just hoping that I could find some intelligent friends here who would help me work through this!

I’d offer to help, but I’m not nearly intelligent enough.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Mark77]

Try this and google underpopulation (archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/220801.shtml) also Demographic Winter and (thecostofabortion.com/).

Why are we so gloom and doom? Didn’t the President get elected on “Hope?” i thought we would develop “Green” technology to power and feed the world?

Oh, i forgot, the billion dollar abortion industry must use fear of overpopulation to scare the “green” crowd into not having kids!

It is true, my 23 year old son, a senior at OSU, told me that exact thing. “The world is overpopulated and because of pollution and greed I do not want to have kids who will suffer and use up precious resources!!!” THESE LIES MAKE ME SICK!!!

The brainwashing starts in kindergarten and is pervasive all the way through College!

The same sad argument was used by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, to justify aborting “undesirable minorities” who use up our valuable resources!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Spirithound]

The problem is I have been challenged with the idea of birth control, the idea that the world is running out of resources and that human beings are like a virus which spreads and devours the food source until there’s nothing left, then they die out.

There are some compelling social arguments to this way of thinking. Certainly the figures bear it out-…

Considering our stewardship of the planet, surely aimless and relentless procreation is neglecting that responsibility? OK I know that we are encouraged to be responsible, but I would like someone else’s perspective on this idea–Surely we have arrived at a point in history, where we realise that reproducing like rabbits is no longer required (in fact it is measurably harmful to us and the other species we share this limited space with) and that having non-reproductive sex is entirely harmless.

So is there anyone here who can help me to discuss this topic in an enlightened way, how Catholics look at these ideas and what we think about this problem.

The “overpopulation gong” has been struck for over 200 years. It has been assumed that population increases exponentially, but food and resources increases linearly, but over the past 200 years, the supply of food has kept up consistently with the demand.

Further, to suggest that abortion is the answer is quite short-sighted. Now we are seeing that nobody is around to take care of our old folks. Surely in an “egalitarian” society, all sectors should have an equal chance to…ahem…do their part to reduce overpopulation…

ps…I DON’T ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT!!!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I need some help with a way of looking at this…

A couple of things which may help Catholics are not in a procreation contest, I know we joke about it however catholics are allowed to use population control methods just not any and every method. Second the advances in science surely have us prepared to have ready access to a woman’s state of fertility, thus easier timing for birth control. Third the world could not hold 7 billion using 17th century means of farming, ranching, water control etc, etc. Today we approach 7 billion with a higher than ever standard of living, meaning the people can develop the means to support children (even 10, 20 or 30 billion)

hope that helps

 

[dcrowmik]

The terrible argument the “overpopulation” proponents make is that at some point in time Earth will only be able “support” a specific number of people. Using their logic, then, there WILL be some point in time (whether it’s in 10 years, 100 years or 1,000 years) when that specific number happens, no matter how slow population growth gets to.

Thus, when the population gets to that specific number in that point of time, what will they say then – start killing people to keep the number stable, sterilize 95% of teenagers so they can’t reproduce during adulthood, exterminate a certain race, creed, culture, etc?

Face it, the world WILL end at some point in time (it could be tomorrow in fact) – and all of us still here with it. Isn’t it much better to prepare for a happy life in Heaven with Jesus by honoring and abiding by His commands and the laws of His Church instead of listening to and abiding by what the Culture of Death wants?

 

[manualman]

This one is easy.

EVERY SINGLE first world nation on earth is below or barely at replacement rate. Most are well below replacement rates due to abortion and contraception.

Rapid population growth only occurs in the nations still making the transition from pre-industrial / pre-science era to the modern world. Historically, the fertility rates have always dropped after that transition was made - EVEN BEFORE contraception became commonplace and socially acceptable.

The ‘crisis’ of population growth is really only a crisis of poorly shared resources, especially education. Once people become convinced that there is a very good chance that all their children will survive to adulthood, most have less. History shows it over and over again - across cultural divides. And it only crosses the line into serious negative growth when abortion and contraception enter the picture.

The approaching crisis is NOT overpopulation. The crisis is going to be DEpopulation if the remainder of the third world finishes their transition before the ‘first world’ matures past its sick fascination with abortion and contraception.

You need a total fertility of about 2.1 kids per woman to sustain a population. Most of Europe is around 1.6. Japan hovers just above 1. And it’s spreading to places like Turkey and Iran too.

Google total national fertility rates for current info.

Weird huh? Humans tend to have a lot of kids when survival rates are low and fewer kids when survival rates are high. Almost like it was designed that way…

 

[Exalt]

OP, the ideas you’ll find come from individuals who hold their religious beliefs about abortion, contraception, and God’s relationship to “creation” in such a way that it takes priority over everything else. They believe that God wants most people to have many children, to never use contraception or abortion - and they figure that God will make it work somehow, even despite evidence to the contrary. They believe that God created the world for human beings, and that all the animals, plants, and resources here are for our enjoyment and benefit. God made this earth for human beings, they say, and we should continue to “be fruitful and multiply.”

I, however, will present my own ideas on the subject. In the United States, most of us live a life of relative prosperity. We each probably have a car, we each have a computer, our own house or apartment, and we eat lots of food every day. We go to work, we watch movies, we use public transportation, we use air travel, we read the newspaper, we listen to the radio, we watch television. We generally enjoy American life. But, can 6.8 billion people enjoy the same thing? Can the world support 6.8 billion cars? If not, how do we choose who gets a car and who doesn’t? Is that fair? Can the world support 6.8 billion human beings getting a new cell phone or computer every five years? Can the world support the continued production of new newspapers, magazines, and books for 6.8? If every human being on the planet had the same standard of living as you and me, what about all of our collective waste? What about all our thrown out clothing, papers, and technology waste?

I don’t think that standard of living is sustainable by the entire population of this planet. In fact, I think it’s quite clear that planet can even support the small percentage of the world population that lives our particular lifestyle - even if our world population stays the same - for a couple centuries, as the world continues to warm from greenhouse gas emissions. If the rest of the world was brought up to our standard of living, what would happen to the environment? It’s clear and obvious to me, and many others, that such a world would not be sustainable.

But it gets even worse. **Let’s say that the entire world suddenly converted to the Catholic way of thinking about abortion and contraception. **One third of the world’s 6.8 billion people is at least under the age of 25. Let’s say that almost every person among these 2.27 billion people finds a spouse, gets married, and then has 3 children by the age of 25. Let’s also say that 10% of the population dies before reaching age 25 (and does not produce those three children) and let’s also account for 5% of the population who enters into religious life or otherwise remains celibate. Even with those caveats, every 25 years, the past generation would produce a new generation that’s 128% larger than the previous. In a 100 years, the new *emerging generation *would be 6 billion strong. Let’s say that the world life expectancy improves to 75 years old. The total population in a 100 years would be 14.39 billion.

Well, you might say, that’s not *too *much bigger. We already have 6.8 billion people now, and we’re okay, right? Well, we’re not “okay” now, first of all, but you’re not thinking of the bigger picture. If the whole world passed down their values regarding bearing children to the next generation, how many people would make up the new generation in a thousand years?

In a thousand years, that new generation would be 37.700 trillion, with a total population of 90.478 trillion. That’s over 10,000 times larger than the new generation of today.

But by then, Jesus would have returned, right?

Seriously, the idea that it’s good to have 3 children and bad to not have any children is not sustainable. Eventually you have to change your tune and say “Okay, we have enough people now.” Do we want to wait until the year is 2110 and we have 14 billion people on the planet? How about in the year 2210 when there are 38 billion? Or when we have 500 billion? Or a trillion? Or seven trillion? Or a hundred trillion? When do we have enough people that we say, “Okay, enough is enough - we have more important priorities than producing the next generation”?

I think that time has already come. I personally like having forests, and trees, and fresh water, wilderness, and biodiversity. Those are great things. I like having a stable climate. I also like my television and computer and car, just like most Americans. If I truly believe in the values of economic equality - that every country in the world ought to have a high standard of living for those who want it - then I must accept the fact that this world can’t sustain that. From there, there are few solutions. One is to continue the standards of inequality in our world, where a few get lives of luxury but most get lives of poverty - but another is to simply stop reproducing as much. Over the next thousand years, why not encourage birth control and small families, so we actually *reduce *our total population by a a couple percentage points. That seems like the most obvious solution, save getting everyone in a space ship and flying off to inhabit some other planet. And, in fact, as others have pointed out, the west has already trended towards this choice naturally.

 

[tuviskazinai]

This one is easy.

EVERY SINGLE first world nation on earth is below or barely at replacement rate. Most are well below replacement rates due to abortion and contraception.

Rapid population growth only occurs in the nations still making the transition from pre-industrial / pre-science era to the modern world. Historically, the fertility rates have always dropped after that transition was made - EVEN BEFORE contraception became commonplace and socially acceptable.

The ‘crisis’ of population growth is really only a crisis of poorly shared resources, especially education. Once people become convinced that there is a very good chance that all their children will survive to adulthood, most have less. History shows it over and over again - across cultural divides. And it only crosses the line into serious negative growth when abortion and contraception enter the picture.

The approaching crisis is NOT overpopulation. The crisis is going to be DEpopulation if the remainder of the third world finishes their transition before the ‘first world’ matures past its sick fascination with abortion and contraception.

You need a total fertility of about 2.1 kids per woman to sustain a population. Most of Europe is around 1.6. Japan hovers just above 1. And it’s spreading to places like Turkey and Iran too.

Google total national fertility rates for current info.

Weird huh? Humans tend to have a lot of kids when survival rates are low and fewer kids when survival rates are high. Almost like it was designed that way…

I don’t know if this one is easy, but you sure make it sound easy!! haha. Thanks for the excellent response.

OP, I have struggled with the same questions for a long time, and I can’t say that I’ve gotten it all to make sense yet. I do think that Manualman has some great points. As I see it, the biggest problem is not that the world’s population is growing, but that it’s growing unevenly. Even though the birth rate is around 1 in Japan, it is higher than 6 in several devastatingly poor third-world countries. So we have twin problems of depopulation in the developed world (the situation in China, for instance, is horrifying: it is hurtling towards economic collapse because its forced abortions and one-child-only policy have left the country without a base of young workers to support a top-heavy aging and retiring population) and overpopulation in the third world (this video is not Catholic and has some wrong-headed conclusions, but it raises some incredibly difficult questions: youtube.com/watch?v=fvx0eAFQ-RY&feature=channel_page).

I think that the population will even out as rural populations move to cities and behavior patterns change. (I have seen some graphs agreeing that the Earth’s population will hit 9 billion but saying that then our societies will naturally adapt, and from that 9 billion peak we will start to descend again – ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7973.) The problems are that a) in the meantime, people will suffer from an uneven distribution of resources, water shortages, etc., and that b) once the population does peak, it will be very top-heavy and there will be some really rough times as the elderly are depending on an overworked youth to bear a disastrous economic burden.

I am not an expert, so I could have that all wrong…but it seems to me the important thing is to figure out how to share resources on a global level and how to solve the problems of social security and medicare (solutions we need to start working on now but which aren’t on the public’s radar), rather than to revisit the Church’s teachings on contraception or, much less, abortion…

You are right to raise these issues.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

You raise a lot of good points, Exalt, but just a few comments…

OP, the ideas you’ll find come from individuals who hold their religious beliefs about abortion, contraception, and God’s relationship to “creation” in such a way that it takes priority over everything else. They believe that God wants most people to have many children, to never use contraception or abortion - and they figure that God will make it work somehow, even despite evidence to the contrary.

I think you’re right that some Christians feel this way – i.e., the Quiverfull movement! – and that we should be more aware of global issues than we are. But the issue isn’t that we prioritize random dogma over ecological concerns; it’s that we don’t want to prioritize ecological concerns over a respect for human life. There is a serious risk here of falling prey to the mentality which regards people, especially children, as burdens, as problems to be solved or numbers to be reduced, rather than as human beings whose needs are normal and represent, in fact, sacred opportunities for us to create bonds of charity among each other. Can’t we have children, welcome them into the world, if we teach them that they need to respect and share resources?

Also, I can understand your views on contraception if you are not Catholic…that is definitely a difficult teaching to accept, even for those of us in the Church! But to conflate contraception and abortion, as though abortion is just another birth control technique to be “used” whenever we like, is to make a serious category mistake. Abortion affects a human life which already exists – its immorality is different, and more grave, than that of contraception.

I don’t think that standard of living is sustainable by the entire population of this planet.

I totally agree…but the question is, should we reduce the birth rate and maintain the standard of living, or should we reduce the standard of living (in a spirit of Christian sacrifice and poverty) and maintain the birth rate? Remember that in depopulated regions of the world, economic woes are on our heels. Reducing the birth rate is not always the humanitarian option. I have heard that no nation in the history of the world has experienced population decline and economic growth at the same time. I’m not sure if that’s true, but I can’t think of any arguments to the contrary off the top of my head…

But it gets even worse. **Let’s say that the entire world suddenly converted to the Catholic way of thinking about abortion and contraception. **One third of the world’s 6.8 billion people is at least under the age of 25. Let’s say that almost every person among these 2.27 billion people finds a spouse, gets married, and then has 3 children by the age of 25. Let’s also say that 10% of the population dies before reaching age 25 (and does not produce those three children) and let’s also account for 5% of the population who enters into religious life or otherwise remains celibate. Even with those caveats, every 25 years, the past generation would produce a new generation that’s 128% larger than the previous. In a 100 years, the new *emerging generation *would be 6 billion strong. Let’s say that the world life expectancy improves to 75 years old. The total population in a 100 years would be 14.39 billion.

This seems to me to be the most difficult of your arguments to counter. I would be curious to hear what others have to say about it. I will say, though, that it would be prudent to apply some of game theory’s insights here: behavioral patterns (decisions, bets, etc.) are not unswayed by lived human experience. If we had 14 billion people milling around then probably people would start thinking twice about their behavior patterns, and we Catholics hope that this would mean natural family planning rather than artificial contraception, or ditching the third Cadillac and the seventeen Big Macs for lunch rather than widespread abortion. In other words, society is an adaptive organism, and it can adapt in good ways and in bad ways…we have to think about all the ways that could happen and try to influence future events for the better. For instance, there is also the hope that human ingenuity will respond to new challenges with new technologies: if we are confronted with dire effects of overpopulation, we would hope that we will figure out new ways to produce food, purify water, reduce waste, circulate resources, etc. We must have hope that all is not lost.

Seriously, the idea that it’s good to have 3 children and bad to not have any children is not sustainable.

I do think that this is something to contemplate deeply…but there are all sorts of behavior patterns that could be changed. Did you know that 50% of last year’s live births in France took place outside of marriage? It seems to me that when the Church speaks out against premarital sex, everyone criticizes it for being prudish and unrealistic. But if you are going to support contraception because the importance of its effect on population growth overrides any moral issues germane to the question, will you also speak out against other risky behavior and suggest sacrificing the so-called “pleasures” of premarital sex so that we can reduce unwanted pregnancies without having to have recourse to abortion and at least keep births within the bounds of safe, secure marriage units?

I think that time has already come. I personally like having forests, and trees, and fresh water, wilderness, and biodiversity. Those are great things. I like having a stable climate. I also like my television and computer and car, just like most Americans. If I truly believe in the values of economic equality - that every country in the world ought to have a high standard of living for those who want it - then I must accept the fact that this world can’t sustain that.

Again, this is my main problem. I like, I like, I like…I think the problem is with the high standard of living, which is frequently wasteful. Now, I know that this is not an issue for most Christians, and it should be…there have been many threads on this forum calling global warming a myth, there are many Protestant pastors saying that to have five cars is a reward from God for being diligent, etc. etc…

Thoughts from anyone?
I am enjoying this important discussion.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

A beautiful poem, by the way, by Gerard Manley Hopkins about humanity’s relation to God’s created earth:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod; 5
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things; 10
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

Might be relevant somehow…“And for all this, nature is never spent…” Gives us hope…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[mary1173]

I need some help with a way of looking at this. I have been winning the abortion argument- why wouldn’t I, the Catholic position is really the only position a sentient being could hold on the issue. The problem is I have been challenged with the idea of birth control, the idea that the world is running out of resources and that human beings are like a virus which spreads and devours the food source until there’s nothing left, then they die out.

There are some compelling social arguments to this way of thinking. Certainly the figures bear it out-

World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The world population is the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of April 2009, the Earth’s population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.[1] World births have levelled off at about 137-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990’s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040.[5][6]

[Current World Population - The Population of the World](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm)
1900 1.6 billion
1965 3.3 billion
2010 6.8 billion

Considering our stewardship of the planet, surely aimless and relentless procreation is neglecting that responsibility? OK I know that we are encouraged to be responsible, but I would like someone else’s perspective on this idea–Surely we have arrived at a point in history, where we realise that reproducing like rabbits is no longer required (in fact it is measurably harmful to us and the other species we share this limited space with) and that having non-reproductive sex is entirely harmless.

So is there anyone here who can help me to discuss this topic in an enlightened way, how Catholics look at these ideas and what we think about this problem.

Thanks!

Well, let’s see… God can increase the world’s population in a heartbeat,and likewise,God can decrease the world’s population in a heartbeat. Wikipedia isn’t God…thankGod for that! And there will be plenty on the feast table to go around for everyone.
God lets things happen that we do not or cannot undrstand.Let God guide the way. Be patient, and observe.

 

[mary1173]

OP, the ideas you’ll find come from individuals who hold their religious beliefs about abortion, contraception, and God’s relationship to “creation” in such a way that it takes priority over everything else. They believe that God wants most people to have many children, to never use contraception or abortion - and they figure that God will make it work somehow, even despite evidence to the contrary. They believe that God created the world for human beings, and that all the animals, plants, and resources here are for our enjoyment and benefit. God made this earth for human beings, they say, and we should continue to “be fruitful and multiply.”

I, however, will present my own ideas on the subject. In the United States, most of us live a life of relative prosperity. We each probably have a car, we each have a computer, our own house or apartment, and we eat lots of food every day. We go to work, we watch movies, we use public transportation, we use air travel, we read the newspaper, we listen to the radio, we watch television. We generally enjoy American life. But, can 6.8 billion people enjoy the same thing? Can the world support 6.8 billion cars? If not, how do we choose who gets a car and who doesn’t? Is that fair? Can the world support 6.8 billion human beings getting a new cell phone or computer every five years? Can the world support the continued production of new newspapers, magazines, and books for 6.8? If every human being on the planet had the same standard of living as you and me, what about all of our collective waste? What about all our thrown out clothing, papers, and technology waste?

I don’t think that standard of living is sustainable by the entire population of this planet. In fact, I think it’s quite clear that planet can even support the small percentage of the world population that lives our particular lifestyle - even if our world population stays the same - for a couple centuries, as the world continues to warm from greenhouse gas emissions. If the rest of the world was brought up to our standard of living, what would happen to the environment? It’s clear and obvious to me, and many others, that such a world would not be sustainable.

But it gets even worse. **Let’s say that the entire world suddenly converted to the Catholic way of thinking about abortion and contraception. **One third of the world’s 6.8 billion people is at least under the age of 25. Let’s say that almost every person among these 2.27 billion people finds a spouse, gets married, and then has 3 children by the age of 25. Let’s also say that 10% of the population dies before reaching age 25 (and does not produce those three children) and let’s also account for 5% of the population who enters into religious life or otherwise remains celibate. Even with those caveats, every 25 years, the past generation would produce a new generation that’s 128% larger than the previous. In a 100 years, the new *emerging generation *would be 6 billion strong. Let’s say that the world life expectancy improves to 75 years old. The total population in a 100 years would be 14.39 billion.

Well, you might say, that’s not *too *much bigger. We already have 6.8 billion people now, and we’re okay, right? Well, we’re not “okay” now, first of all, but you’re not thinking of the bigger picture. If the whole world passed down their values regarding bearing children to the next generation, how many people would make up the new generation in a thousand years?

In a thousand years, that new generation would be 37.700 trillion, with a total population of 90.478 trillion. That’s over 10,000 times larger than the new generation of today.

But by then, Jesus would have returned, right?

Seriously, the idea that it’s good to have 3 children and bad to not have any children is not sustainable. Eventually you have to change your tune and say “Okay, we have enough people now.” Do we want to wait until the year is 2110 and we have 14 billion people on the planet? How about in the year 2210 when there are 38 billion? Or when we have 500 billion? Or a trillion? Or seven trillion? Or a hundred trillion? When do we have enough people that we say, “Okay, enough is enough - we have more important priorities than producing the next generation”?

I think that time has already come. I personally like having forests, and trees, and fresh water, wilderness, and biodiversity. Those are great things. I like having a stable climate. I also like my television and computer and car, just like most Americans. If I truly believe in the values of economic equality - that every country in the world ought to have a high standard of living for those who want it - then I must accept the fact that this world can’t sustain that. From there, there are few solutions. One is to continue the standards of inequality in our world, where a few get lives of luxury but most get lives of poverty - but another is to simply stop reproducing as much. Over the next thousand years, why not encourage birth control and small families, so we actually *reduce *our total population by a a couple percentage points. That seems like the most obvious solution, save getting everyone in a space ship and flying off to inhabit some other planet. And, in fact, as others have pointed out, the west has already trended towards this choice naturally.

WHOOAH! wait a minute,You’re not looking at famines, and diseases that kill millions every year, not to mention still births and genetic disorders that claim millions of others! Millions will die in car crashes, accidents, [automobile, plane, train, etc] millions will die from diseases like AIDS, syphilis, herpes,shingles, etc, Millions will not have enough to eat [Somalia and Ethiopia,famines] what else? No warm clothing to wear, homelessness, poverty…All of these things will decrease life expectancies for the next 50+ years to come.
I see the world decreasing in population for the next couple hundred years before it levels off and doesn’t DECREASE in population any further. People are losing their homes, jobs, income, and ability for self sustainability…people can’t afford food, clothing and the things needed to go on in life for long periods. I expect high death rates from the things I’ve mentioned…and yes, people will still have babies and families.This accounts for the lives that are created while others are lost.Millions die every day the only thing is not many really stop to think about it that way.

 

[Erich]

The problem is I have been challenged with … the idea that the world is running out of resources

Not likely.

[World Population 2010](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm): 6.8 billion
Land Area of Texas: 268,820 sq. mi.
Population density of NYC: 26,403/sq. mi.

One could theoretically accommodate the entire population of the world (i.e including all of China, all of India, …) in an area the size of the state of Texas and a population density of 25,296/sq. mi.

Of course, food/water distribution would be a challenge… but certainly not an insurmountable one. We can do it in NYC, so we ought to be able to “ramp it up.” The point is, that leaves available the whole rest of the world for growing food, producing energy, etc.

Next time you look at a globe, look how small Texas is compared with the rest of the world… and you’ll see that we’re far from running out of resources.

 

[Calliso]

Not likely.

[World Population 2010](http://geography.about.com/od/obta(name removed by moderator)opulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm): 6.8 billion
Land Area of Texas: 268,820 sq. mi.
Population density of NYC: 26,403/sq. mi.

One could theoretically accommodate the entire population of the world (i.e including all of China, all of India, …) in an area the size of the state of Texas and a population density of 25,296/sq. mi.

Of course, food/water distribution would be a challenge… but certainly not an insurmountable one. We can do it in NYC, so we ought to be able to “ramp it up.” The point is, that leaves available the whole rest of the world for growing food, producing energy, etc.

Next time you look at a globe, look how small Texas is compared with the rest of the world… and you’ll see that we’re far from running out of resources.

Sigh not the we could all live in Texas story again. I am tired of arguing against this point though. But I will just say this…there is a pretty big difference between new york city and having the entire world population in Texas.

 

[mary1173]

Idon’t know about you, but I don’t likebeing called a ‘‘virus’’…How do the rest of you feel about this one?!?:ehh:

 

[Exalt]

WHOOAH! wait a minute,You’re not looking at famines, and diseases that kill millions every year, not to mention still births and genetic disorders that claim millions of others! Millions will die in car crashes, accidents, [automobile, plane, train, etc] millions will die from diseases like AIDS, syphilis, herpes,shingles, etc, Millions will not have enough to eat [Somalia and Ethiopia,famines] what else? No warm clothing to wear, homelessness, poverty…All of these things will decrease life expectancies for the next 50+ years to come.

Okay, then you can dock my total population numbers, but the estimated population of each new generation should be about the same, unless you think that more than 10% of the population wouldn’t make it to age 25, or more than 5% would for some reason not have any children.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I need some help with a way of looking at this. I have been winning the abortion argument- why wouldn’t I, the Catholic position is really the only position a sentient being could hold on the issue. The problem is I have been challenged with the idea of birth control, the idea that the world is running out of resources and that human beings are like a virus which spreads and devours the food source until there’s nothing left, then they die out.
…

Humans are like a virus which spreads?
Anyone who thinks that has some serious self-esteem issues.

---

By the thread title I thought this was going to be about the recent scare of a flu virus pandemic devastating the human population. I don’t know if that’s hit the media where you live, but the flu has making headlines here. International travel might spread serious illness that could wipe out much the population, yet some still complain about “over-population” because humans reproduce. When your friends say humans are like a virus that kill, remind them that real viruses exist that kill humans.

It only takes one real bad virus to de-populate the planet significantly. The black plague (virus or bacteria??) devastated the population of Europe centuries ago. We humans are not immune from real viruses that might do the same again.