Population Control

[MIKolbe]

Whenever I read/hear of population control, it seems to end with sentiments of "just enough of me, way too many of you"

[vee]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1317066251' post='2310567']
Whenever I read/hear of population control, it seems to end with sentiments of "just enough of me, way too many of you"
[/quote]

thats how i feel reading your posts

[LaPetiteSoeur]

Since I stink at embedding videos:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM[/media]

This was from the American Papist website long, long ago.

Edit: Third time's the charm. For some reason, it's now embedded!

Edited September 26, 2011 by LaPetiteSoeur

[Mr.Cat]

Watched the video... it makes me realize propaganda can go to both extremes.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317061382' post='2310500']
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]
[/quote]
Sweet, thanks.

[Guest eskvar]

One thing I've not seen brought by Catholics in population debates is the fact we have and believe it's good to have celibate clergy, dedicated celibate religious orders and consecrated virgins. In other words, not all Catholics are called to having biological children and increasing the worlds population. If we genuinely believe God is watching over us and guiding the world and has a plan, then were the world to reach a point where there were simply too many people for the earth's resources to provide for couldn't God respond by increasing the number of people called to life-long celibacy?
Assuming for a moment overpopulation is or is about to be a major issue, there are plenty of church approved ways to reduce the number of children being born. The Church says it is okay to take advantage of women's natural fertility cycles and space children out, probably causing an overall decrease in number of children. In many countries, the age at which people get married is rising, which leads to less children. Even among faithful Catholic couples, not everyone will have a dozen children.
As for whether overpopulation is currently the greatest problem facing the world's poor, I don't think it is. The problem in many 3rd world countries is one of infrastructure and corruption. There are a lot of countries where food and supplies get shipped in, only to end up in the hands of corrupt officials, or local gangs and criminals. Some countries lack adequate roads and shipping channels to distribute goods. Then of course you run into issues like whether it's better to grow corn to feed cows, corn to undergo an extremely inefficient and costly conversion to ethanol, or corn to feed directly to people. The world can produce adequate calories, but we need to use those calories wisely and distribute them equitably.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1317037928' post='2310409']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[/quote]

Devil's advocate: of course population growth is declining, but that's all thanks to advanced measures in family planning and education! Most of the countries (if not all) you mentioned specifically are developed nations right? And most developed nations have employed extensive contraception outreach and have legalized abortion as a contraceptive method. If you crazy-arse Catholics had it your way we'd be growing out of control!

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317040938' post='2310414'] [color=#0000cd] [/color]I think we should ask ourselves is would we be comfortable with that many people? In my opinion, the answer is no.[/quote]

I think that putting comfort first is a a pretty serious philosophical flaw of the modern world.

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1317051587' post='2310456']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." [/quote]

Right that's one argument, uneven dist. of resources. To be honest I don't know the empirical data enough to understand if human population contributes to environmental degradation or if it's the other way around sort of. I disagree with the idea of overpopulation philosophically so much so that I'm willing to eagerly jump on board into any scientific theory that affirms this, so I am trying to be wary of my own bias here when I look at the data. Hence the second part of my question: IF too many humans was a substantial threat, and the scientific data was nearly undeniable, what's the moral way to respond?

Most people here are stating why philosophically and theologically it is a distasteful and unacceptable view. [b]I get that, and it's not really what I want to discuss [i]exactly[/i]. [/b]A good Catholic (hell, even a bad one) cannot assent to such a misanthropic and elitist ideology, but the point is how do we respond? How do we say, despite the numbers, despite the data, that this ideology is dangerous? Obviously if I were to say, here's the best solution: let's all of us developed countries kill ourselves voluntarily and free up the world's resources, or less drastically, let's just let the poor die and kill each other. It would solve the overpopulation problem right? but people [i]understand[/i] usually why that is a disgraceful stance to take. How do we demonstrate how serious the contraceptive mentality is even IF it seems counterintuitive to scientific data?

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317061382' post='2310500']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),
[/quote]

as I said to Papist, this may very well be a [i]result[/i] of increased contraceptive use, and it most likely is. I seriously doubt it's that people are having less sex or that fecundity has naturally declined.

So while all of your data that indicates a leveling out of population is appreciated, it's useless in aiding the scientific validity of Catholic moral teaching. It's basically saying thank goodness we ignored the church's teaching on contraception or we'd have quite a mess on our hands.

The data I would really appreciate is whether or not human population [i]can[/i] exceed or is exceeding to a point that the environment cannot support human life. All I'm getting is data that population is leveling out, but if you can't separate that from the effects of contraception it's not very helpful to me.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Are you saying that exploitation of third world resources via major corporations and rich governments (that very often provide us disproportionate comforts and luxuries) is not stealing? Or that it's not exploitation?

I really hope not. Are you saying, "yes there is exploitation of resources by corrupt governments and less governmental/corporational interference will help solve the problem"? That is something I don't necessarily disagree with. But if you think the USA controlling a quarter of the world's resources is ok . . . I really think that's a terrible condition to take. I'm not accusing you of that, but only asking for clarification.

I'll watch that vid when I get the chance.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Ice_nine

[Ice_nine]

I do understand why this idea is frustrating to many Catholics, but I would like to honestly and bravely look at the numbers. Even if they do prove that population is a problem, I will never concede to the contraceptive mentality because I believe that poses a much greater moral problem. But I really think we need to look at the data in such a way that says "yes we acknowledge there might be a problem, but your it does no justify such heinous solutions"

feel me?

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='eskvar' timestamp='1317090270' post='2310757']
One thing I've not seen brought by Catholics in population debates is the fact we have and believe it's good to have celibate clergy, dedicated celibate religious orders and consecrated virgins. In other words, not all Catholics are called to having biological children and increasing the worlds population. If we genuinely believe God is watching over us and guiding the world and has a plan, then were the world to reach a point where there were simply too many people for the earth's resources to provide for couldn't God respond by increasing the number of people called to life-long celibacy?
Assuming for a moment overpopulation is or is about to be a major issue, there are plenty of church approved ways to reduce the number of children being born. The Church says it is okay to take advantage of women's natural fertility cycles and space children out, probably causing an overall decrease in number of children. In many countries, the age at which people get married is rising, which leads to less children. Even among faithful Catholic couples, not everyone will have a dozen children.
As for whether overpopulation is currently the greatest problem facing the world's poor, I don't think it is. The problem in many 3rd world countries is one of infrastructure and corruption. There are a lot of countries where food and supplies get shipped in, only to end up in the hands of corrupt officials, or local gangs and criminals. Some countries lack adequate roads and shipping channels to distribute goods. Then of course you run into issues like whether it's better to grow corn to feed cows, corn to undergo an extremely inefficient and costly conversion to ethanol, or corn to feed directly to people. The world can produce adequate calories, but we need to use those calories wisely and distribute them equitably.
[/quote]

good point, I tried to touch on that point of religious/monastic life in my first post, and also NFP, but do you think realistically this can be applied internationally on a practical level? I don't unfortunately.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317100084' post='2310801']I think that putting comfort first is a a pretty serious philosophical flaw of the modern world.[/quote]So you would rather be uncomfortable. Noted.

[Ice_nine]

I would rather live morally than comfortable yes, although often time I do not rise to this standard. THe appropriate amount of self-loathing is thusly administered.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317103003' post='2310812']I would rather live morally than comfortable yes, although often time I do not rise to this standard. THe appropriate amount of self-loathing is thusly administered.[/quote]That wasn't what I wrote... It is sort of like the video someone posted here saying every family [i](I guess no one lives alone[/i]) could live in Texas in a house and with a yard.

When you do the math, if you include uninhabitable areas of Texas ([i]including rivers and lakes[/i])... you come to about 40 people per acre.

But when you actually think about it, the problem of overpopulation is not lack of space... and it's not necessarily lack of global resources. Someone else threw out that its uneven distribution of resources, which means in some places there are inadequate resources/environment for the people... This by definition IS overpopulation.

The bizarre mindset of people that want to deny a demographic phenomena... who would be willing to admit that deer are over populated because there isn't enough resources in their habitat, but when it comes to humans they immediately want to start applying stricter definitions to what constitutes overpopulation.

But this idea that we need to go out with machine guns to thin out the poor, start forcefully sterilizing the undesirable, or even start imposing abortions forcefully is ludicrous. The United States does technically have population control policies already in place, it's voluntary and working just fine.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

I know at least one person in here who will not contribute to overpopulation...

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317117501' post='2310879']I know at least one person in here...[/quote]This is where I stopped believing you.

[Papist]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317100084' post='2310801']
Devil's advocate: of course population growth is declining, but that's all thanks to advanced measures in family planning and education! Most of the countries (if not all) you mentioned specifically are developed nations right? And most developed nations have employed extensive contraception outreach and have legalized abortion as a contraceptive method. If you crazy-arse Catholics had it your way we'd be growing out of control!
[/quote]
You're are assuming that the assertion that there is an overpopulation problem is correct. That's the point. There was/is not a overpopulation problem. And many countries are reaping the fruits of the population control initiatives. Russia for example, A Russian region of Ulyanovsk noticed the nation's birth-rate crisis: It has declared Sept. 12 the Day of Conception and for the third year running is giving couples time off from work to procreate. The hope is for a bunch of babies exactly nine months later on Russia's national day. Couples who "give birth to a patriot" during the June 12 festivities win money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes. Ulyanovsk, about 550 miles east of Moscow, has held similar contests since 2005. Since then, the number of competitors, and the number of babies born to them, has been on the rise. Russia, with one-seventh of Earth's land surface, has just 141.4 million citizens, making it one of the most sparsely settled countries in the world. With a low birth rate and a high death rate, the population has been shrinking since the early 1990s. In his state-of-the-nation address in 2006, President Vladimir Putin called the demographic crisis the most acute problem facing Russia and announced a broad effort to boost Russia's birth rate, including cash incentives to families that have more than one child. Ulyanovsk Gov. Sergei Morozov has added an element of fun to the national campaign. The 2007 grand prize went to Irina and Andrei Kartuzov, who received a UAZ-Patriot, a sport utility vehicle. Other contestants won video cameras, TVs, refrigerators and washing machines.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Papist