If we are to believe the “global warming” people, Greta Thunberg et al (who should not be criticized or lampooned for her passionate defense of the earth, I greatly admire her for her principled stance even if I might disagree with aspects of it), and others who point out that population is outstripping resources, the planet Earth is in great trouble due to the activity of mankind.
If even some of this is true, would it be morally permissible to advocate either for zero population growth, or slow arithmetic growth rather than exponential, multiplicative growth? I realize that “conservative” commentators, especially Catholic ones, advocate for various forms of exponential growth, using the argument that the earth could sustain many times its present population, tens, possibly scores of billions, if only people would change their lifestyles, curb pollution, curb their energy use (especially carbon-based, nonrenewable sources), and eat lower on the food chain. In Catholic circles, this is also accompanied, at least implicitly and unspoken, by the idea that “there would be more souls to give glory to God”.
But does it bind us in conscience to believe this? Could faithful, orthodox Catholics maintain that world population should be capped, let’s say, at 10 billion, with possibly a very small annual growth factor (less than one percent), and everyone agreeing to use NFP to keep their families either at replacement level or slightly above it? Would we be able to say “yes, the Bible says ‘be fruitful and multiply’, but to keep on doubling and doubling the world’s population will end up ruining the planet for all of us, so maybe ‘multiply’ can also mean a very, very slow rate of growth, now that we have reached this point”?
And, yes, I realize that the entire population of the world isn’t going to take up NFP, but I am just speaking in terms of advocating population control using morally acceptable means.
Thoughts?
If even some of this is true, would it be morally permissible to advocate either for zero population growth, or slow arithmetic growth rather than exponential, multiplicative growth? I realize that “conservative” commentators, especially Catholic ones, advocate for various forms of exponential growth, using the argument that the earth could sustain many times its present population, tens, possibly scores of billions, if only people would change their lifestyles, curb pollution, curb their energy use (especially carbon-based, nonrenewable sources), and eat lower on the food chain. In Catholic circles, this is also accompanied, at least implicitly and unspoken, by the idea that “there would be more souls to give glory to God”.
But does it bind us in conscience to believe this? Could faithful, orthodox Catholics maintain that world population should be capped, let’s say, at 10 billion, with possibly a very small annual growth factor (less than one percent), and everyone agreeing to use NFP to keep their families either at replacement level or slightly above it? Would we be able to say “yes, the Bible says ‘be fruitful and multiply’, but to keep on doubling and doubling the world’s population will end up ruining the planet for all of us, so maybe ‘multiply’ can also mean a very, very slow rate of growth, now that we have reached this point”?
And, yes, I realize that the entire population of the world isn’t going to take up NFP, but I am just speaking in terms of advocating population control using morally acceptable means.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
