Nfp & Overpopulation

[Slappo]

I'm curious as to what peoples thoughts are on using NFP for the "serious reason" to prevent overpopulation of the world.

I use serious reason in quotes to identify the language used by the Church in discerning the use of NFP, not for sarcasm.

Is the prevention of overpopulation in the world a justifiable reason to use NFP in a first world country? What about a third world country? I'm interested in both your thoughts on whether it is justifiable today, and whether it may be considered justifiable in the future when the world population has increased to larger numbers (+10bil for instance).

[TheUbiquitous]

M. For a serious, proportionate reason not itself immoral, couples may practice periodic continence.
m. "To prevent overpopulation" is a serious, proportionate reason not itself immoral.
C. To prevent overpopulation, couples may practice periodic continence.

Now, other issues are going to get in the way of this, but taken abstractly that's the thought. Also, all this said, the weak link in the argument usually lies in the minor premise, which assumes that overpopulation is a serious concern these days. It isn't.

But, should it be a serious concern, there you have it.

[PhuturePriest]

Well, worldwide overpopulation is a myth, first of all. Every person in the world could live in the State of Texas with a house and a yard. Doesn't sound too overpopulated to me. There are places where they cannot provide sufficient food sources for the growing population, which simply means the economy there is not food-focused, and I think practicing natural family planning in a place where if you had another child it would starve would be perfectly fine, but these cases are very hard to come by in a first world country like America. In third world countries this is an often enough occurrence, and so natural family planning would be a good and moral move.

[Slappo]

Regardless of how over or underpopulated we are at present, there is a number of people that the earth will be able to sufficiently sustain. Be it 10 billion 1 trillion or 100 trillion. The earth doesn't have infinite resources. As world population grew exponentially in the last two centuries, if population growth rates continued to grow exponentially over the next few hundred years there might be serious problems.

I wonder if humanity can actually hit overpopulation or if the life cycle of humanity and the earth will naturally sort things out or if the end of time would come before we hit such limitations.

[TheUbiquitous]

[url="http://prodigalnomore.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/frustrating-the-natural-end/"]Related[/url], at [i]chez moi[/i]:
[indent=1]
If the death of the universe were to come, there would still be no problem with the Church's teaching, though the answer comes from an unexpected quarter: God has a plan, and we live this out by discerning our particular vocation. This is no cop-out. Vocations are part of complete Catholic teaching, as inseparable as the Mass. We cannot single out "what if we all behaved like Catholics sexually" to impugn the Church because "behaving like Catholics sexually" does not mean we behave like Catholics in other matters.

With this in mind, suppose we Catholics found our resources completely exhausted; that we really did have nowhere else to turn; that billions and billions years from now the universe finally dies, slowly, coldly of heat death --- we may find that our vocations may have prayerfully become some flavor of religious or secular continence. But suppose that God does not call us to continence, for not even continence will prevent the end of things. If our universal vocation becomes at this point not just holiness but holiness in what we call matrimony, perhaps the best use of the last bit of energy in the universe would be conceiving the last new life our Cosmos ever produced.

Just imagine: [b]One lonely spermatozoon racing from the final stillness which would bring Creation to a final winter, this cell only just ahead of the collapsing cosmos.[/b] Finally, then at once, it meets its final end --- and, in another sense, we meet ours --- in the last mother's last ovum. In bold defiance of the lord of this world, in bold obedience to the Lord of All, the last act of life is new life. One last act emulating the cross: From death, life; by the will of God.[/indent]

Edited August 31, 2012 by TheUbiquitous

[sixpence]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1346366459' post='2476442']
Regardless of how over or underpopulated we are at present, there is a number of people that the earth will be able to sufficiently sustain. Be it 10 billion 1 trillion or 100 trillion. The earth doesn't have infinite resources. As world population grew exponentially in the last two centuries, if population growth rates continued to grow exponentially over the next few hundred years there might be serious problems.

I wonder if humanity can actually hit overpopulation or if the life cycle of humanity and the earth will naturally sort things out or if the end of time would come before we hit such limitations.
[/quote]

Overpopulation:: when a population reaches its carrying capacity (K in pop models) and begins to degrade its environment such that it lower K by destroying finite resources.
There is definitely localized over population now, as for global overpopulation, that depends on your definition. People are always throwing around number saying that the we have ample resources, its just a distribution problem etc. Some citations would be nice. And do we think these distribution problems are likely to get better?? And I am sure that we could support X number of people.... but at what cost? Are we willing to turn everything into a farm? I hope not.

Edited August 31, 2012 by sixpence

[Papist]

Overpopulation never crosses my mind...EVER!

[cmotherofpirl]

[url="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=using-fertilizer-wisely-could-help-feed-9-billion-people&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20120830"]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=using-fertilizer-wisely-could-help-feed-9-billion-people&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20120830[/url]

[emmaberry]

If a couple told me they were practicing NFP because of overpopulation, I would ask them what the real reason is.

If Catholics start doing this, Americans numbers will keep dwindling. We are already not replacing ourselves. We will turn into Europe, where Muslims make up the majority of the large cities, because they are replacing themselves and then some.

[Jaime]

If one is against overpopulation, then the logical response is zero population growth. In other words, two kids and we're done. To me that doesn't sound like being open to life.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

What do you all mean by natural family planning ? Condoms or Abstinance or Cycle ?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1346385119' post='2476566']
If one is against overpopulation, then the logical response is zero population growth. In other words, two kids and we're done. To me that doesn't sound like being open to life.
[/quote]

What is wrong with 2 children without contraception and abortion? Even though there would be zero growth it isn't anti life because life can be had at zero population growth in faith,hope and agape love. And st paul states "how i wish you all where like me, but as i know this is not possible i reccomend many times of abstinance." If we encourage lengthy times of abstinace in marriage from the get go after 2 children have been birthed it would be much easier to than be chaste for the remainder of ones life. We indeed have become over sexed and under agaped. But i'm an idealest and it would need a major revolution against the sex and drug revolution. This doesn't mean though even if we could all do that that some wouldn't give in after the 2 children are born and end up having 3 or more children, but if most could be taught as such than the population growth would be more like 0.05 which is the legal limit of alcohol levels in the blood for driving a vehical on the road lol. It wouldn't actually be a zero growth level just extremely lower growth, even though i'm an idealest i understand it is not possible for all, but possibly possible for most if we work together.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1346361833' post='2476406']
Well, worldwide overpopulation is a myth, first of all. Every person in the world could live in the State of Texas with a house and a yard. Doesn't sound too overpopulated to me. There are places where they cannot provide sufficient food sources for the growing population, which simply means the economy there is not food-focused, and I think practicing natural family planning in a place where if you had another child it would starve would be perfectly fine, but these cases are very hard to come by in a first world country like America. In third world countries this is an often enough occurrence, and so natural family planning would be a good and moral move.
[/quote]

And i agree with the overpopulation is a myth at present, but i'm not 100 percent sure it's just my feelings on the matter. And that it is an economic problem not a lack of farming area. I hope if it is in GODS plan that we will have reliable long distant space travel before before we get criticaly overpopulated, if there are other habital planets out there. The planet earth may very well be the centre of the universe, the beggining.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and maybe every other planet out there is just a vegetative planet with only flora and fauna and no humans,if there are other liveable planets, created all for humans by The LORD our GOD.

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't think our "overpopulation" problem would be solved by just having fewer kids. There's nearly a negative birthrate in many European countries. The solution isn't having fewer kids. The solution is to use our resources more effectively.

So if I couple's serious reason was overpopulation, I'd ask them what else they're doing to solve the problem. Recycling? Driving a hybrid car, taking public transit, or walking? Donating to food banks? Purchasing clothes second-hand? Donating to famine-relief organizations? If the only thing a couple is doing to deter "overpopulation" is not having kids, I'd question how deeply they've considered their serious reason.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Basilisa Marie