Population Control

[Ice_nine]

Hello y'alls. I'm taking an intro to conservation issues there, so I'm pretty much already an expert on it BUT

one recurring theme/problem that keeps coming up is overpopulation and the obvious solution: birth control and abortion. Now I know why the church is opposed to these things on a theological level, and I fully assent to her wisdom. I would still like to have a serious discussion about it though because it's creating a bit of tension and conflict within me that I don't know how to resolve yet.

[b]First I'd like to discuss the evidence for the link between population growth and environmental degradation. [/b]Obviously atm I am getting more evidence that yes, too many people is a big problem, although some perspectives have been presented with the opposing view.

A Cornell professor: if we don't take action to reduce the world to an optimal population (of 2 billion) then "12 billion miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100"

Other people believe that humans are the "ultimate resource" and that the main problem is the uneven dist. of goods (americans constitute 5% of the world's population but use up about 1/4 of the world's energy).

I would very much welcome any evidence that anyone has to purport these opposing theories, which I know are overgeneralized but hey I'm not a legit expert on this croutons. Obviously I have an emotional investment in the validity of the latter theory, identifying as a Catholic and all, but I want to really examine this issue honestly and opposing views from both theists and non-theists would be helpful

Now for[b] the second thing I want to discuss[/b], I doubt that many of you non-theists will be able to help me,[b] the implications, should overpopulation be a real environmental problem, the moral solutions to this problem, and how to circumvent the shoddy patchwork that modern wisdom offers as a solution: abortion and contraception.[/b]

The Earth is a finite area with a finite amount of resources that can only support a finite amount of organisms for a finite amount of time. This we obviously know, even though the numbers of the aforementioned categories are hotly debated (which is why maybe that should be a separate discussion). But for this second moral/philosophical aspect let's assume for all intents and purposes that we either are overpopulated, or are readily approaching overpopulation, which will shortly after cause a massive dieback because the earth can't support us all. How do we, using moral theology, solve this problem?

I will admit at first glance I can understand why passing out condoms and birth-control hormones and aborting the "unwanted" seems like the easiest (an on the surface most "humane" way) to cut numbers. I might think that monogamy, and the monastic religious like might ease the numbers a bit, but I have no solid evidence or figures. Also NFP, I really doubt, could be integrated into impoverished areas because as far as I know that requires somewhat extensive education and medical instruction. Popping a pill or throwing a condom on just seems way easier.

[b]The contradiction between the Western ideals of humanitarianism and multiculturalism[/b]
I found it interesting that an early harbinger of the overpopulation issue Thomas Robert Malthus was actually against humanitarian efforts because they encourage growth. Now I find it interesting that today the "benevolent" West often times will only extend aid and education if people accept the ideals of "family planning." With multiculturalism being all the rage I find it oh so hypocritical for people to force their Western ideology onto native peoples. If the idea is to leave cultures with their own unique beliefs and all those fluffy sentiments uninfluenced by the wild wild West, then they should not be forcing Africans, Latin Americans, and Asians to assent to the modern glories of abortion and the pursuit of unrestrained sexual pleasure. Ah, there goes the dictatorship of relativism. So they would either help impoverished peoples without the heavy-handed ideology, or leave em alone to suffer and die. It's funny how these people can seem all warm and fluffy about "helping people" but as soon as you say "don't force your ideas on homosexuality on indigenous tribes. They have their own beliefs about that, You wouldn't want to pollute their culture with Western ideals?" THEN you see the teeth.

Am I out of line here? Does anyone havve anything to add, or contest? I would like very much to hear.

Other questions:
[b]Does the overpopulation theory contain classist implications?[/b]
It's the poorest of the poor that are booming in numbers, is this idea the panic of "oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) we're gonna be outnumbered real soon!" similar to the eugenics movement and the propagation of sterilization and abortions of minority races?

(Also while we're at it, eugenics seems sort of glossed over in academia as like "yeah it was something that was really bad, but we learned now and don't believe that anymore." Is this because this example demonstrates all too clearly how devastating the effects of utilitarianism are and they're just trying to cover their tracks? Or is it because, it [i]really[/i] is not a big deal anymore. Obviously as a Catholic I am biased. I see the current abortion industry as the biggest modern day travesty, so it would really help my argument if it's run by a bunch of racist and classist pigs. You see how this may color my thinking? Any objective resources on this topic would be much appreciated.)

[b]what are some real moral solutions to reduce overall population?[/b]
and why are these moral solutions overlooked or dismissed as too difficult. Why the resistance, and how to we get around it?

I really hope some of y'all, being really smart cookies, will be able to help out a dumb undergrad sort out this poo

[Papist]

I can't believe they are still teaching that bunk....yes I can. I don't think there is going to be a problem with over-population. Many countries are experiencing a negative population growth. Take Italy for example,

In 1965, the population of Italy was 52 million, of which 4.6 million, or just under 9 percent, were children younger than 5. A decade later, that age group had shrunk to 4.3 million - about 7.8 percent of Italians. By 1985, it was down to 3 million and 5.3 percent. Today, the figures are 2.5 million and 4.2 percent.

Young children are disappearing from Italian society, and the end isn't in sight. According to one estimate by the UN's Population Division, their numbers will drop to fewer than 1.6 million in 2020, and to 1.3 million by 2050. At that point, they will account for a mere 2.8 percent of the Italian nation.

Italy isn't alone. There are 1.7 million fewer young children in Poland today than there were in 1960, a 50 percent drop. In Spain 30 years ago, there were nearly 3.3 million young children; there are just 2.2 million today. Across Europe, there were more than 57 million children under 5 in 1960; today, that age group has plummeted to 35 million, a decline of 38 percent.

The world's population is still growing, thanks to rising longevity. But fertility rates - the average number of children born per woman - are falling nearly everywhere. More and more adults are deciding to have fewer and fewer children. The UN reports that worldwide there are 6 million fewer babies and young children today than there were in 1990. By 2015, according to one calculation, there will be 83 million fewer. By 2025, 127 million fewer. By 2050, the world's supply of the youngest children may have plunged by a quarter of a billion, and will amount to less than 5 percent of the human family.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Papist

[Mr.Cat]

The general position of the Catholic Church, to my understanding, is that the Earth has no limitations for human overpopulation, and that any symptoms of human overpopulation are the result of poor social management, a catastrophe, or some other phenomena. But from a purely critical point of view, overpopulation is merely when there are too many of a species to be adequately supported by the environment ([i]regardless of how that environment came into being[/i])... so human overpopulation is definitely a possibility.

For the time being, I am willing to concede that most human overpopulation can be either solved or managed in the short-term, if we were so motivated. I suspect that the alarming aspect of overpopulation concerns are generally unfounded, but I do know that it is a real problem that deserves real solutions. However, I do support a ([i]hundreds of years[/i]) long-term goal for the species, when it is attainable, of stabilizing ([i]possibly reduction[/i]) the population globally. Right now in most developed parts of the world I suspect the ability to stabilize our population through voluntary means are available now and that overpopulation is not a major concern.

Apart of the reason I don't believe undeveloped parts of the world have this ability yet is the low life expectancy rates and high infant mortality rates... in some places a sizable minority of children are not expected to reach full adulthood. So in these parts of the world I find it understandable that birth rates are higher... rather than in developed parts of the world were life expectancy rates are higher, infant morality lower, and almost all children are expected to reach full adulthood... I understand lower birth rates.

With increasing scientific understanding, technological advancement, and improved social support our ability to host more population will be possible. The world is rapidly changing now, such as recently more than half of the human population lives in city areas, increasing the need for more efficient municipal government and urban planning. With each problem we overcome allowing for more people, the more social and environmental problems we have. Such as increased light pollution, something still largely unaddressed in the 21st century. So while I would accept the argument that we hypothetically can have indefinite population growth granted our ability to host greater populations grows proportionally... the increasing and lingering question to me is what would the quality of that life be?

For the sake of discussion... assume somehow we could adequately host without any symptoms of overpopulation one trillion humans on the planet. That would be multiplying each person by more than a hundred. From our perspective, small rural communities today would seem like moderately large cities in the future. While I find the notion of a population of even half a trillion absurd at any point in our future, the question I think we should ask ourselves is would we be comfortable with that many people? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

[Amppax]

Nice thread Ice, been thinking about this lately. It seems to me that these concerns don't apply as much to the developed world as they do to third world countries. And, like Mr. Cat pointed out, these countries have high mortality rates. So I think much of the hysteria about over-population is driven by a desire to give a legitimate (in their eyes) rationalization for abortion and contraception.

Then again, I really don't know that much about this issue, so....

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1317037928' post='2310409']
The world's population is still growing, thanks to rising longevity. But fertility rates - the average number of children born per woman - are falling nearly everywhere. More and more adults are deciding to have fewer and fewer children. The UN reports that worldwide there are 6 million fewer babies and young children today than there were in 1990. By 2015, according to one calculation, there will be 83 million fewer. By 2025, 127 million fewer. By 2050, the world's supply of the youngest children may have plunged by a quarter of a billion, and will amount to less than 5 percent of the human family.
[/quote]
Source?

[bernard]

I think that the world is overpopulated for the current system. I also think that there are people, groups of families that own the system ie the rockefellars, the queen, George Soros, the rothschilds, the harrimans, the bronfmans and the like. I also believe that various technology has been suppressed and that if we had full use of some of these things there would be no limit to how many people the earth could support. But for these kinds of things to happen the current group will have to relinquish control which they are unlikely to do willingly.

[AudreyGrace]

I took a conservation course last year with State U of NY Environmental Science and Forestry and had to listen to this "overpopulation" argument all. year. long. After ten months of it, I realized that the issue isn't overpopulation- it's an uneven distribution of resources. "Over"population wouldn't be an issue if there were plenty of resources on Earth. Oh wait.....there are. It's just that more developed countries like the US use up a substantial amount more and waste a lot along with that. Don't get me wrong, I won't be the first one to give up everything I have and send it elsewhere, but I'm just saying that if everything was distributed a little more equally, overpopulation wouldn't be as huge a problem. Again, that in itself has moral consequences and puts the fate of society in the hands of regulators, so as I see it...what can we do?

As Amppax mentioned earlier, the overpopulation bit is pretty much a dolled-up argument in favor of contraception and abortion. I cannot even begin to say how many times I've read scientific journals that said something along these lines: "If we were to make birth control and reproductive health measures available to women in third world countries where overpopulation is a pressing issue, populations in these areas will healthily decline allowing for a better quality of life and use of natural resources."

Edited September 26, 2011 by AudreyGrace

[ardillacid]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1317046912' post='2310434']I think that the world is overpopulated for the current system. I also think that there are people, groups of families that own the system ie the rockefellars, the queen, George Soros, the rothschilds, the harrimans, the bronfmans and the like. I also believe that various technology has been suppressed and that if we had full use of some of these things there would be no limit to how many people the earth could support. But for these kinds of things to happen the current group will have to relinquish control which they are unlikely to do willingly.[/quote]big oil is suppressing a perpetual motion machine, right?

[Winchester]

I only use medium oil, so I'm not contributing to the problem.

[Socrates]

There's a bit much to respond to here, but I've done research on this topic several years back, and overpopulation is indeed a myth. Most of the developed world have fertility levels below replacement level (the amount of children being born a population must have in order to sustain its current population levels - at least 2.1 children per woman), which means population is set to actually decline in these countries, and already has begun declining in parts of Europe and Japan. In the U.S. and some other developed countries, population is only growing because of high immigration levels. Fertility rates are rapidly declining in much of the world, and world population will likely begin to decline by the middle of this century.

Here's[url="http://overpopulationisamyth.com/"] a short video series on the topic[/url] from PRI, a pro-life group which combats population control efforts.
(I thought the narration and animations were a bit annoying, but the facts are solid.)

As they note, PRI uses the UN's low variant for its population projections. Their assertion that the low variant has tended to historically be most accurate is correct. The UN has had to continually revise its population projections downward from past projections, as world fertility rates are declining far more rapidly than they were projected. PRI president Dr. Steve Mosher says he thinks even their low estimates are too high.

I recently read an article in a recent issue of [i]National Geographic[/i] magazine on the unexpectedly rapidly declining fertility rates in Brazil, and the article says that this trend is occurring in many developing countries, in which women are suddenly deciding to have much fewer children than their parents. (And National Geographic has always been an environmentalist source which has pushed the whole "population bomb" scare.)

Here's the historical and projected figures for world population using the UN's low fertility estimates:
[url="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp"]http://esa.un.org/un...pp/p2k0data.asp[/url]

(edit: found after I posted the link that you have to select "Population" from the left sidebar menu, then set the parameters for this to work. Select "population," "low variant," then you can select individual countries, regions, or the world and see the figures. )

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1317045254' post='2310427']
Source?
[/quote]
This feature on the UN website gives fertility rates from 1950 and projected trajectories country by country.
There's a lot of other fun stuff on the site if you search around.

[url="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/fertility_figures/interactive-figures_TF-trajectories.htm"]http://esa.un.org/un...rajectories.htm[/url]


Also, the idea that poverty and such in other countries is caused by rich countries "stealing" from poor countries and that these problems will be fixed by more socialistic forced redistribution of wealth is pure garbage. Most poverty in poor countries is caused by bad government systems which prevent wealth from being created. Economic freedom is the best indicator of a nation's prosperity. For instance, Hong Kong has one of the world's densest populations and few natural resources, yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

This video is over ten years old, but is still relevant and very eye-opening, especially for those who believe that more government regulation and control of the economy is the key to economic success. We watched part of it for a global business class.

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc[/media]

Edited September 26, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1317056489' post='2310474']
big oil is suppressing a perpetual motion machine, right?
[/quote]
They stole it from the aliens who crash landed at Roswell.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Socrates

[ardillacid]

I will bet I hit 8 out of ten, let me know Bernie:

Nazis have a secret base in Antarctica

Big corporations are suppressing a hidden energy source with unlimited potential.

9/11 was an inside job.

Bush and Obama are puppets of the bildenberg group.

The interstate highway system was created so the government could quickly repress revolt.

The sspx are the real church

Hitler did not commit suicide. In fact, he lived out his days in the aforementioned base.

Aliens helped build the pyramids.

Jfk was assassinated because he would not obey his bildenberg masters' bidding.

And of course, the end of the world is coming December 2012

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317061382' post='2310500']

This video is over ten years old, but is still relevant and very eye-opening, especially for those who believe that more government regulation and control of the economy is the key to economic success. We watched part of it for a global business class.

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZpDjxIPpFc[/media]
[/quote]
We have this on dvd. John Stossel has a website [url="http://stosselintheclassroom.org/"]http://stosselintheclassroom.org/[/url] where he gives away dvds for educators. They have segments from 20/20 that start thought-provoking discussions. My kids have loved them. (This show, "Is America Number One?," was given away there as well...)

[vee]

Im always amused at how the people who think the world is overpopulated dont consider themselves part of the problem, and help solve it by offing themselves first.