Population Control

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1318991877' post='2323472']

sarcasm I get it,

but I do recall that in the past you in a way agreed taht overpopulation could indeed be a problem? Is my memory deceiving me? If not, I'd be interested in what you have to say
[/quote]
Yeah, sort of. My views are not fully formed as I'm largely ignorant of such things, but I currently think that there are many legitimate concerns that are often packaged with the overpopulation agenda, but that using overpopulation as a catch-all, and family planning/reproductive technology as a silver bullet solution, is the wrong way to go. I actually question the concept itself as I think it is too simplistic and often inaccurate - although I do recognize the validity of the concept in certain contexts. Population stresses can contribute to resource shortages, epidemics, political instability, war, and a general lowering of quality of life, and I don't agree with those who seem completely closed to the idea that population can be a negative factor at all. Still, I think fixation on overpopulation is unwarranted and to be fair it must be recognized that population growth is in many cases correlated with economic growth and development. I could go on but I feel like I'm talking out of my arse already.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1318923202' post='2323081']
overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.
[/quote]
Your face is a mith.

[Ice_nine]

nevermind, your bs is not worth responding to

Edited October 20, 2011 by Ice_nine

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1319063251' post='2323924']
Yeah, sort of. My views are not fully formed as I'm largely ignorant of such things, but I currently think that there are many legitimate concerns that are often packaged with the overpopulation agenda, but that using overpopulation as a catch-all, and family planning/reproductive technology as a silver bullet solution, is the wrong way to go. I actually question the concept itself as I think it is too simplistic and often inaccurate - although I do recognize the validity of the concept in certain contexts. Population stresses can contribute to resource shortages, epidemics, political instability, war, and a general lowering of quality of life, and I don't agree with those who seem completely closed to the idea that population can be a negative factor at all. Still, I think fixation on overpopulation is unwarranted and to be fair it must be recognized that population growth is in many cases correlated with economic growth and development. I could go on but I feel like I'm talking out of my arse already.
[/quote]

razzle dazzle, that's kind of where I'm at. It's just difficult I guess having a-holes on both sides being pretentious and condescending while I'm trying to look at an issue and assess it honestly. I very much appreciate your humility

[Amppax]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319055395' post='2323862']
[/quote]

tl;dr

But contraception is wrong. I'm not sure how you can be opposed to abortion seriously and not at the same time oppose contraception. If you could possibly write a more concise summary of why you think it is morally licit, I'd like to hear. I just really don't have time to read the long responses, sorry.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1319129922' post='2324228']tl;dr

But contraception is wrong.[/quote]I can haz tautology?

[quote]I'm not sure how you can be opposed to abortion seriously and not at the same time oppose contraception. If you could possibly write a more concise summary of why you think it is morally licit, I'd like to hear. I just really don't have time to read the long responses, sorry.[/quote]Abortion kills a human being whose life needs to be protected, whereas contraception does not kill a living thing and the haploids in question do not have the quality or condition of being inviolable.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319135718' post='2324296']
Abortion kills a human being whose life needs to be protected, whereas contraception does not kill a living thing and the haploids in question do not have the quality or condition of being inviolable.
[/quote]
The pill is an abortient. It prohibits the fertilized egg (aka a living thing) from attatching to the uterine wall. If the baby does not attach to the uterine wall, he/she dies. So while it may not directly cause the death of the baby outright, it prohibits the baby from living further. (which kinda sounds like killing the baby outright)

If viability is your argument, they you have no problem with an abortion before 20 weeks?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319137302' post='2324310']
The pill is an abortient. It prohibits the fertilized egg (aka a living thing) from attatching to the uterine wall. If the baby does not attach to the uterine wall, he/she dies. So while it may not directly cause the death of the baby outright, it prohibits the baby from living further. (which kinda sounds like killing the baby outright)

If viability is your argument, they you have no problem with an abortion before 20 weeks?
[/quote]Viability is not my argument. Implantation is where I draw the line.

Consider the following. In the course of regular baby-making, a lot more conception happens than you might think. About three times more, as a matter of fact. That's right, on average, for every one fertilized egg that implants and gets a woman somewhere along the way to pregnancy (which can end in miscarriage, abortion, or some type of live birth), there are two fertilized eggs that fail to implant after conception and are expelled from the woman's body in exactly the same way that eggs are normally expelled. To the naked eye, nothing is different- either way, we are talking about a microscopic bunch of cells. Difference is, conception happens in one instance (one out of three) and not in the other (two out of three).

So let's say your family has three living children, one that died at a young age, and two miscarriages over the years. Total, that's six fertilized eggs that implanted. Based on overall averages, though, you and your significant other probably conceived an additional 12 times or so, but none of those zygotes succeeded in implanting. So you "lost" them, and to you, that must kinda sound like 12 outright dead babies.

But in this situation, do you really, honestly think of this as a family that's lost 12 children? I know I don't. It's awful when young children die. It's horrible when babies die. Miscarriages are terrible. Abortions are ugly, and they often deliver a much harder psychological hit than either of the would-be parents are expecting- even if they have a strong history of being pro-choice. Zygotes that fail to implant, on the other hand....if you're being honest with yourself, you know that's not the same kind of thing. It's not a dead baby. It's visually indiscernible from an unfertilized egg (mostly because they're both microscopic), and while one of them is just one haploid and the other one has united two haploids and formed a gamete, neither one of them is really a dead baby in any sense of the word.

Getting back to the example of the family that I gave- they have three living children, they lost one post-natal, and they lost two while still pre-natal. The numbers suggest that they probably conceived an additional 12 times, but these are not 12 dead babies by any stretch of the imagination and they are not 12 "dead children" that you "lost." They are zygotes that didn't implant. So if it's necessary, you might want to make an adjustment to what your imagination normally does.

Getting back to [b]your[/b] argument, though. If your argument is against anything that remotely straddles the line between contraceptive and abortifacient, does this mean you join the vast majority of Catholics worldwide in being completely ok with barrier-type means of contraception? Let me remind you- this type of contraception is most relevant to the topic of humanitarian aid in developing countries where overpopulation and STDs are major concerns, and therefore most relevant to the OP.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cooterhein

[stevil]

A few things reduce population growth.
1. Education
Educated people tend to have significantly less babies than uneducated people. The longer they stay at school, the longer they leave it until they start having babies, often they put career first upto a certain age and then at the last minute have one or two babies.
2. Economics
In a lot of countries it is hard to get by on a single income. Often both Husband and Wife need to work, it becomes economically difficult for one to take time off to have babies. Not to mention the cost of bringing up a baby.
3. Birth Control
People educated in the proper use of birth control devices, pills etc, can easily avoid undesired pregnancies. Simply preaching abstinence does not work, as animals we have a strong desire and attraction for each other and sex. Most people (including Catholics who are taught to abstain) have sex for recreational purposes rather than procreational purposes at least at some point in their lives. Unprotected sex is extremely risky if you don't want to get pregnant.

[stevil]

With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319173456' post='2324530']
With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.
[/quote]Long-term systemic poverty on a nation-wide scale is a complex problem with tough, complicated solutions. What you generally need in order to get at the root causes of poverty is simultaneous, holistic improvements in education, technology, clean water, food, health care, and economic opportunities. It has to be sustainable improvement, and it's generally best if relief workers operate in partnership with people who actually live there so they can be trained to do what needs doing long-term. BTDub, this is precisely what World Vision does all over the world. It's an Evangelical relief and development umbrella organization with a statement of faith that corresponds to the one put forward by the National Association of Evangelicals. It's pretty huge. No one does it better. It's exactly the kind of thing that Catholics would normally get on board with, but much to their chagrin, World Vision takes a position on contraception that is cautiously and selectively favorable while being consistent with the UN Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5, which are to reduce child mortality and improve maternal health respectively. Additionally, in case there's any Catholics on here who feel the need to make an ill-timed accusation pertaining to forcibly shoving one thing down the throat of another person, "All contraceptive methods promoted by World Vision are reviewed with respect to ethical, medical and development standards. World Vision programs are also designed and implemented in partnership with communities, and in collaboration with national health policy, the local health system, local faith-based organisations and other non-government organisations undertaking similar programs." Some Catholics over-react a little bit, though, and in a misguided effort to make these kinds of organizations seem monstrous, they'll describe these efforts in ways that are as foolish as they are inaccurate.

More specific to overpopulation, though, education for women in particular is the most important thing, along with making a range of contraceptive options available according to what the situation dictates and according to what works best for those people. Educating females is especially important for the following reason: If the young ladies of a developing country spend more time on education and delay marriage (and, presumably, baby-making) by an average of four years (which is very realistic), those women will have- on average- 2.2 fewer children. It's kind of a huge transition for people when their women change the average age of marriage by this much, though, especially when the usual way of doing things is changed so drastically in a really short amount of time and the situation promises to change more in the future. Contraception can be an important part of easing the transition by allowing women to begin marriages (with sex included) before they've completed all of their education while delaying childbirth until their education is completed. Or they can wait an extra few years and break ties with their cultural tradition even more than they otherwise would- they still have that option, too. Additionally, they have the option of using contraception from their early-mid 30's into their early-mid 40's and decrease the chance of a high-risk pregnancy. By doing this, women in developing countries can effectively eliminate at least four of their most fertile child-bearing years on the front end and around 10 of their less-fertile but more high-risk years on the back end.

So that's how you handle overpopulation in developing nations. Focus on the women, beginning with education while getting an assist from contraception. There's a half-dozen other things that need to be worked on simultaneously in order to address the root causes of widespread cyclical poverty, but those are the things that do the most good for population growth.

Oh, there's some good news- since 1980, the global average for the number of children born to each woman has dropped from 3.7 to 2.5 (as of 2009). That's tremendous progress. It's still pretty well ahead of the necessary replacement rate (which is 2.1), and there are certain countries that are much too high while others are much too low (the EU, for example, stood at 1.5 in 2009). Some countries need to pick it up at some point, and others need to settle down quite a bit- but in the last 3 decades, things have gotten more manageable and real progress is generally looking more realistic. Italy is kind of hard to figure out, though- the pope lives on that peninsula and encourages his people to be fruitful and multiply, but Italian women still have less babies (1.41 in '09, dropped to 1.32 in '10) on average than Chinese women where childbirth is curtailed by a strict legal mandate (1.77 in '09, 1.54 in '10). We shouldn't blame the Italian women, though. Or any lack of sex among Italians- that's certainly not a problem. Nor should we blame widespread use of contraception among Italian married couples that are otherwise steeped in Catholicism- that's definitely happening, but it's just a symptom of the problem. Based on the info available to me, it's mostly due to the shortcoming of Italian men as parents. But that's a different topic.

[cooterhein]

Editing fail by me: In post 53, I got my 1 out of 3 and 2 out of 3 backwards in the paragraph beginning with "Consider the following." Out of all the times when conception happens, odds are only 1 in 3 that the zygote will implant and go on to become a blastocyst, a fetus, and so forth. In two out of every three examples where conception happens, however, the zygote does not implant and it is expelled from the body just like an unfertilized egg. Apologies for the bad editing. While I'm typing, though, let me reiterate the point: A flushed zygote is not remotely close to being the same thing as a dead baby.

This is largely directed at Mlkolbe.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cooterhein

[sixpence]

As a wildlife conservation minor I struggled with these issues as well.

I need more time to make a good response.... but I am also not going to be so quick to dismiss the idea of overpopulation. I do not think we are at the point of overpopulation On A Global Scale; nor am I 100% convinced we Will reach it/ not reach it (I have trust issues with any type of long term models ). However, if it were to be reached I do not know what the "Catholic answer" might possibly be (other than hoping and praying that God calls more people to celibacy)....

Overpopulation On A Local scale has Obviously occurred in a number of places, and anyone who says otherwise is not familiar with the definition of overpopulation. Clear signs of overpopulation (population size over K -carrying capacity-) are the degradation of the environment such that even Less people can be supported in that space. There are many examples of this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1319055395' post='2323862']
I assume you're a white person? Assuming you are....I don't know if you're familiar with southeast Asia at all, but Asian people already outnumber everyone. A rapidly growing population is the kind of problem that needs to get solved, but the clamor for a solution does not come from outside such a country. It comes from within.
[/quote]
What relevance does her race have to any of this?

Quite frankly, your spiel about how "Asian people already outnumber everyone" sounds more than a little racist. Much of the "population control" propaganda looks to be little more than thinly disguised demographic warfare - especially as how today the great bulk of global population growth is occurring in formerly sparsely-populated African and southern Asian countries.Can't have all those black or yellow people taking us over!

As for Asia, Japan actually currently faces one of the world's biggest population aging/decline problems, with not enough young people to take care of the nation's rapidly aging population due to many Japanese women having few or no babies. China - the world's largest Asian country - is now also facing a similar aging population crisis due to its government-forced one-child policy, which includes forced abortions.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1319173456' post='2324530']
With regards to overpopulation, there are many countries that are well overpopulated, have been for decades, Countires like Ethiopia quite frequently have people dying of starvation. Simply giving money to temporarily feed some of these people does not alleviate this problem.
[/quote]
Ethiopia's problems are due to natural disaster in the form of droughts/famines, and a massively corrupt and ineffective government/economic structure. The government often does not allow food aid from other country's to actually feed the people. Ethiopia has a population density (74/sqr. km.) far lower than that of France (116/sq. km.) and other European countries.

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1319234455' post='2324867']
Overpopulation On A Local scale has Obviously occurred in a number of places, and anyone who says otherwise is not familiar with the definition of overpopulation. Clear signs of overpopulation (population size over K -carrying capacity-) are the degradation of the environment such that even Less people can be supported in that space. There are many examples of this.
[/quote]
Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated places on Earth, and has few natural resources, yet enjoys one of the world's highest living standards. (See the John Stossel video I linked to earlier). Economic freedom, rather than low population, is the primary determining factor in standard of living.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Socrates