Welcome to the Real World

Festus · 08-03-2012 11:44pm #1

Just a quick dose of reality for those that are interested. The population of the world appears to be rising but birthrates across the world are falling.

Why?

Contraception, divorce, abortion and improved health care. Essentially the aspirational desires of secular modernists are now having the impact they least expected.

We're having less kids and living longer. Is this sustainable?

Non-Catholics - watch the video and learn

Catholics feel free to read and enjoy the words of out esteemed brother Knight.

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2012/03/epic-failure-of-modernism.html

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Social science has now FINALLY caught up with the Catholic Church. The latest studies show that while the world population is growing, the number of children per household is actually decreasing -- EVERYWHERE -- even in Islamic countries! The reason why the world population continues to rise is not because people are having more babies, but because people are living longer. We will hit a population plateau within the next couple decades, which will be followed by a rapid decline in overall population. The effect of this will be a prolonged and unending economic depression!!!

Causes of Depopulation...

1. Career Women - Feminism.
2. Affluence - Decadence - (fewer children - invest more in each child).
3. Artificial birth control - coupled with sexual promiscuity - sexual revolution.
4. Cohabitation = less children.
5. No fault divorce = family instability.
6. Unwarranted fears of overpopulation (not supported by modern data).

Social scientists now admit that MARRIAGE DOES MATTER. MARRIAGE DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT!!! The Church was right about marriage. The Church was right about family. The Church was right about artificial birth control.

Doc Farrell · 09-03-2012 12:23am

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT is an OPINION EDITORIAL Web Log (Blog) of one Catholic man based on religion, philosophy, politics, culture, news and current events. All written materials contained herein are the personal opinions of the blogger and those who comment. These should in no way be construed as official commentary from any Catholic diocese, parish or apostolate.

I wish I was in the land of cotton......

Festus · 09-03-2012 12:28am

Doc Farrell wrote: »

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT is an OPINION EDITORIAL Web Log (Blog) of one Catholic man based on religion, philosophy, politics, culture, news and current events. All written materials contained herein are the personal opinions of the blogger and those who comment. These should in no way be construed as official commentary from any Catholic diocese, parish or apostolate.

I wish I was in the land of cotton......

He didn't produce the video - that came from www.demographicwinter.com - a wholly separate organisation.

And you didn't watch much of it.

If the blogger is not to your liking you can access it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jxUD8E-qbyI#!

Zombrex · 09-03-2012 9:09am

What an odd thread, Catholics arguing we should be having more sex.

Lets get those teen pregnancy figures back up to what they were in the 1960s, that should sort this population problem out :P

prinz · 09-03-2012 9:22am

Festus wrote: »

Is this sustainable?

Essentially no. Not if we want to sustain our standard of living and social structure.. but you may as well be talking to the wall with most people.

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 9:28am

This is one I struggle with.

Ireland's population is not massive but the world's is. Economic sustainability shouldn't be as important as being responsible with the earth's natural resources which strongly appear to be threatened.

I believe we need animals and plants to survive and biological diversity in global animal populations is seriously under threat in my opinion.

I believe human populations need to decrease to be viable for now. Earth is not an infinite resource and we don't seem to have anywhere else to go (yet).

I think we need to reduce economic growth and human population to give natural resources like fish stocks etc. a chance. If we do not do this we will not survive.

My previous stance was that growth was the future but that was predicated on the idea that space travel might solve our problems. I believe it will eventually and increased human population growth will make sense but right now we need to be conservative and let the harvest grow. We need to study new propulsion techniques because our current methods are grossly incapable for expansion beyond earth.

Growth is dangerous right now - we need to stop and think before we consume everything we have. God gave us a brain and we need to use it.

Penn · 09-03-2012 9:36am

Festus wrote: »

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Social science has now FINALLY caught up with the Catholic Church. The latest studies show that while the world population is growing, the number of children per household is actually decreasing -- EVERYWHERE -- even in Islamic countries! The reason why the world population continues to rise is not because people are having more babies, but because people are living longer. We will hit a population plateau within the next couple decades, which will be followed by a rapid decline in overall population. The effect of this will be a prolonged and unending economic depression!!!

Causes of Depopulation...

1. Career Women - Feminism.
2. Affluence - Decadence - (fewer children - invest more in each child).
3. Artificial birth control - coupled with sexual promiscuity - sexual revolution.
4. Cohabitation = less children.
5. No fault divorce = family instability.
6. Unwarranted fears of overpopulation (not supported by modern data).

Social scientists now admit that MARRIAGE DOES MATTER. MARRIAGE DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT!!! The Church was right about marriage. The Church was right about family. The Church was right about artificial birth control.

But that doesn't make any sense. People are living longer due to things like better hygiene and medical care etc. If more people were having more children, we'd reach the 'population plateau' a lot sooner because more people would be having children but also living longer. If anything, having less children has delayed the 'population plateau'.

Am I missing something here?

prinz · 09-03-2012 9:38am

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Ireland's population is not massive but the world's is. Economic sustainability shouldn't be as important as being responsible with the earth's natural resources which strongly appear to be threatened.
...Growth is dangerous right now - we need to stop and think before we consume everything we have. God gave us a brain and we need to use it.

The best response to the above is to curb the disgusting over consumption of resources by a minority of the world's population.

prinz · 09-03-2012 9:46am

Penn wrote: »

But that doesn't make any sense. People are living longer due to things like better hygiene and medical care etc. If more people were having more children, we'd reach the 'population plateau' a lot sooner because more people would be having children but also living longer. If anything, having less children has delayed the 'population plateau'.Am I missing something here?

As the population and the demographics get older and older and there are less and less younger people to replace them then it hits a peak and starts to decline. A top heavy demographic pyramid will topple I take it that's the 'plateau' they are referring to. If people were in effect replacing themselves with young then it would be more like a rolling converyor belt.

Leaving all religion aside I think it should be a political and societal imperative to encourage families and children and in many places that's not the case. After all they are the ones who will be shouldering the costs of health care etc for the ever expanding generations of elderly but many people get so wrapped up in themselves they can't see that far down the line unfortunately.

Festus · 09-03-2012 10:08am

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

This is one I struggle with.

Ireland's population is not massive but the world's is. Economic sustainability shouldn't be as important as being responsible with the earth's natural resources which strongly appear to be threatened.

I believe we need animals and plants to survive and biological diversity in global animal populations is seriously under threat in my opinion.

I believe human populations need to decrease to be viable for now. Earth is not an infinite resource and we don't seem to have anywhere else to go (yet).

I think we need to reduce economic growth and human population to give natural resources like fish stocks etc. a chance. If we do not do this we will not survive.

My previous stance was that growth was the future but that was predicated on the idea that space travel might solve our problems. I believe it will eventually and increased human population growth will make sense but right now we need to be conservative and let the harvest grow. We need to study new propulsion techniques because our current methods are grossly incapable for expansion beyond earth.

Growth is dangerous right now - we need to stop and think before we consume everything we have. God gave us a brain and we need to use it.

Did you actually watch the video?

Like, all if it??

Festus · 09-03-2012 10:09am

prinz wrote: »

As the population and the demographics get older and older and there are less and less younger people to replace them then it hits a peak and starts to decline. A top heavy demographic pyramid will topple I take it that's the 'plateau' they are referring to. If people were in effect replacing themselves with young then it would be more like a rolling converyor belt.

Leaving all religion aside I think it should be a political and societal imperative to encourage families and children and in many places that's not the case. After all they are the ones who will be shouldering the costs of health care etc for the ever expanding generations of elderly but many people get so wrapped up in themselves they can't see that far down the line unfortunately.

Either you did watch the video, or you are as intelligent and as well educated as those in the presentation.

Thank you.

Penn · 09-03-2012 10:22am

prinz wrote: »

As the population and the demographics get older and older and there are less and less younger people to replace them then it hits a peak and starts to decline. A top heavy demographic pyramid will topple I take it that's the 'plateau' they are referring to. If people were in effect replacing themselves with young then it would be more like a rolling converyor belt.

Leaving all religion aside I think it should be a political and societal imperative to encourage families and children and in many places that's not the case. After all they are the ones who will be shouldering the costs of health care etc for the ever expanding generations of elderly but many people get so wrapped up in themselves they can't see that far down the line unfortunately.

Right, but I would still agree with the so-called 'Causes of Depopulation' and the shouts of "MARRIAGE IS RIGHT! THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT!"

Causes of Depopulation...

1. Career Women - Feminism.
This happens in marriage. Married women can have careers too. Married women can have a career and children, married women can have children and no job, married women can have a job and no children.

2. Affluence - Decadence - (fewer children - invest more in each child).
Better for society. If more time and resources can be spent on a smaller amount of children, those children could be better educated and provided for.

3. Artificial birth control - coupled with sexual promiscuity - sexual revolution.
So people shouldn't be allowed to have sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child? Nonsense. If people didn't want to have a child, they wouldn't have sex. Now, if people didn't want to have a child, they can still have sex but not have a child. If anything, sexual promiscuity has brought a lot of children into the world by accident.

4. Cohabitation = less children.
Many, many couples live together unmarried and have children. Marriage doesn't determine the number of kids you have, your desire to have kids determines how many kids you have.

5. No fault divorce = family instability.
As opposed to two people being forced to continue living together and staying married when neither of them want to? Surely it'd be better if people were allowed to divorce, find new partners and have children with them?

6. Unwarranted fears of overpopulation (not supported by modern data).
But if the population were to decrease after hitting a population plateau, this would no longer be an issue.

Benny_Cake · 09-03-2012 10:46am

In 1900 there were less than 2 billion people in the world. There are now over 7 billion. Anyone who thinks that such growth can continue without consequences is deluding themselves I'm afraid.

Festus · 09-03-2012 11:26am

Penn wrote: »

But that doesn't make any sense. People are living longer due to things like better hygiene and medical care etc. If more people were having more children, we'd reach the 'population plateau' a lot sooner because more people would be having children but also living longer. If anything, having less children has delayed the 'population plateau'.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Old people eventually die. The state of the world now is such that as the older population dies there are less children growing up to replace them so the population will decline, probably towards 2b or less over then next three decades.

Try watching the video.

Festus · 09-03-2012 11:29am

Benny_Cake wrote: »

In 1900 there were less than 2 billion people in the world. There are now over 7 billion. Anyone who thinks that such growth can continue without consequences is deluding themselves I'm afraid.

The earth can sustain a lot more people than you think but this is beside the point.

The population is heading towards 2 billion.

Watch the video. It is a presentation from a number of experts in the field of demographics from a scientific perspective.

Festus · 09-03-2012 11:32am

Penn wrote: »

Right, but I would still agree with the so-called 'Causes of Depopulation' and the shouts of "MARRIAGE IS RIGHT! THE CHURCH WAS RIGHT!"

Causes of Depopulation...

1. Career Women - Feminism.
This happens in marriage. Married women can have careers too. Married women can have a career and children, married women can have children and no job, married women can have a job and no children.

2. Affluence - Decadence - (fewer children - invest more in each child).
Better for society. If more time and resources can be spent on a smaller amount of children, those children could be better educated and provided for.

3. Artificial birth control - coupled with sexual promiscuity - sexual revolution.
So people shouldn't be allowed to have sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child? Nonsense. If people didn't want to have a child, they wouldn't have sex. Now, if people didn't want to have a child, they can still have sex but not have a child. If anything, sexual promiscuity has brought a lot of children into the world by accident.

4. Cohabitation = less children.
Many, many couples live together unmarried and have children. Marriage doesn't determine the number of kids you have, your desire to have kids determines how many kids you have.

5. No fault divorce = family instability.
As opposed to two people being forced to continue living together and staying married when neither of them want to? Surely it'd be better if people were allowed to divorce, find new partners and have children with them?

6. Unwarranted fears of overpopulation (not supported by modern data).
But if the population were to decrease after hitting a population plateau, this would no longer be an issue.

Did you watch the video?

Did you take any of it in?

Do you want to discuss the blog in conjuction with what is presented in the video or do you want to discuss the blog?

If you want to discuss the blog in isolation from the video I would need to know what religion you subscribe to so I can get a handle on where you are coming from.

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 11:33am

Festus wrote: »

Did you actually watch the video?

Like, all if it??

I read your summary and am of the opinion that population decline is *in general* a good thing.

A sudden drop is not ideal but it's better than outright destruction of life which is what will happen if our populations continue to increase.

One way or another, earth has to support less people to be a viable habitat going forward. I believe earth is at maximum human population levels and we can't grow beyond earth until we improve our understanding of interstallar transport/survival. Until then, we have to be conservative/smart.

Good social structure is important and family is key, but populations MUST reduce if we are to survive.

Penn · 09-03-2012 11:41am

Festus wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

Did you take any of it in?

Do you want to discuss the blog in conjuction with what is presented in the video or do you want to discuss the blog?

If you want to discuss the blog in isolation from the video I would need to know what religion you subscribe to so I can get a handle on where you are coming from.

I'm unable to watch the video at the moment, I'm referring to the text you posted.

As for what religion I subscribe to, the answer would be none. But I fail to see what religion has to do with this. People are having as many children nowadays as they want to have and can have. And marriage isn't something which is only relevant to one religion. This is a societal issue, not a religious one.

Festus · 09-03-2012 11:46am

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

I read your summary and am of the opinion that population decline is *in general* a good thing.

My summary is quite brief and doesn't do the video justice. Also, the part in italics are the bloggers comments and written for Catholics, hence my distinction. At the time of posting I was unaware it was YouTubed.

As to population decline being a good thing, have you considered the economics of it?

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

A sudden drop is not ideal but it's better than outright destruction of life which is what will happen if our populations continue to increase.

How so? What evidence is there for this?

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

One way or another, earth has to support less people to be a viable habitat going forward. I believe earth is at maximum human population levels and we can't grow beyond earth until we improve our understanding of interstallar transport/survival. Until then, we have to be conservative/smart.

Argument from ignorance. There is no scientific evidence to support this. There may be pseudo scientific arguments but they have no validity.

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Good social structure is important and family is key, but populations MUST reduce if we are to survive.

Why?

Festus · 09-03-2012 11:52am

Penn wrote: »

I'm unable to watch the video at the moment, I'm referring to the text you posted.

What I posted does not do the video justice. Best watch the video then present an argument based on why you disagree with the academics presenting their scientific opinion.

Penn wrote: »

As for what religion I subscribe to, the answer would be none. But I fail to see what religion has to do with this. People are having as many children nowadays as they want to have and can have. And marriage isn't something which is only relevant to one religion. This is a societal issue, not a religious one.

One of the points is that there is a parallel between what these scientists and academics say is good for the world - we should have had more children - and what many religions have always said - have more children.

Also, religion is part of society and the video makes cases for more than one religion.

Penn · 09-03-2012 12:14pm

Festus wrote: »

One of the points is that there is a parallel between what these scientists and academics say is good for the world - we should have had more children - and what many religions have always said - have more children.

Also, religion is part of society and the video makes cases for more than one religion.

But again,

Penn wrote: »

People are living longer due to things like better hygiene and medical care etc. If more people were having more children, we'd reach the 'population plateau' a lot sooner because more people would be having children but also living longer. If anything, having less children has delayed the 'population plateau'.

Now, if the video were to say (I can't watch it until later this evening) that if the population were to rapidly start to decrease, people should have more children to maintain a balance, then I would probably agree. But if people over the past 100 years had been having more children, the population would be far too high to cope.

I did biology for the leaving cert (so I'm no expert or anything), but I remember being shown a graph and learning about what happens when the population gets too high (in relation to nature, not just humans). Population grows and grows until there isn't enough food and resources to sustain that population. So the population evens out for a while, before decreasing. If more people had been having children, we would have either hit that plateau or we'd be a lot closer to it than we are now.

As a previous poster said, the population in 1900 was about 2billion. Now it's 7billion. If more people had bee having children, added together with the improvements in healthcare and sanitation which is helping people live longer, our population could be 8 or 9billion. This would put a huge strain on resources for energy, food production, services etc.

As for having more children, that's really down to the individuals involved, not society or religion. If a couple only wants two children, being made to feel like they should have more is unfair. People are having the amount of children they want to have.

Festus · 09-03-2012 12:30pm

Penn wrote: »

Now, if the video were to say (I can't watch it until later this evening) that if the population were to rapidly start to decrease, people should have more children to maintain a balance, then I would probably agree. But if people over the past 100 years had been having more children, the population would be far too high to cope.

Best watch the video so.

Penn wrote: »

I did biology for the leaving cert (so I'm no expert or anything), but I remember being shown a graph and learning about what happens when the population gets too high (in relation to nature, not just humans). Population grows and grows until there isn't enough food and resources to sustain that population. So the population evens out for a while, before decreasing.

In the animal kingdom you have to bear in mind that most of the time you are talking about ecosystems that are not global. Yes, in a particular area a species can become compromised on resources and the population reduces until it recovers. You will remember that this goes in cycles - population increases, resource issue, population reduces, population increases.

Look at humans. Has there ever been a case when we ran out of resources and suffered a population crash because of it?

No. There are a number of reasons for this. One, we have never pushed the earth to its limits to cause this. Two, we are resourceful. (Resource Full - geddit?... ok, never mind). When we ever get to a situation where we are short on resources a new technology provides a solution.
Look at the ages of man - Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age... as humans develop so does technology and we survive.

In a nutshell we have never ever been resource compromised.

Anyone who presents an argument that we will be is basing that argument on speculation.

In 1924 people were making arguments about Peak Copper causing the end of the Electric Age. Did this happen? Clearly not.

Penn wrote: »

If more people had been having children, we would have either hit that plateau or we'd be a lot closer to it than we are now.

Your grammar belies your attitude. It would have been better to say " if people had been having more children".
On average most have less than two. This is a problem.

Penn wrote: »

As a previous poster said, the population in 1900 was about 2billion. Now it's 7billion. If more people had bee having children, added together with the improvements in healthcare and sanitation which is helping people live longer, our population could be 8 or 9billion. This would put a huge strain on resources for energy, food production, services etc.

There is no evidence of any resource strain, or that one was coming.

Penn wrote: »

As for having more children, that's really down to the individuals involved, not society or religion. If a couple only wants two children, being made to feel like they should have more is unfair. People are having the amount of children they want to have.

Ah yes, personal desire trumps Darwin when the species wants to go extinct.

Penn · 09-03-2012 12:44pm

Festus wrote: »

Best watch the video so.

In the animal kingdom you have to bear in mind that most of the time you are talking about ecosystems that are not global. Yes, in a particular area a species can become compromised on resources and the population reduces until it recovers. You will remember that this goes in cycles - population increases, resource issue, population reduces, population increases.

Look at humans. Has there ever been a case when we ran out of resources and suffered a population crash because of it?

No. There are a number of reasons for this. One, we have never pushed the earth to its limits to cause this. Two, we are resourceful. (Resource Full - geddit?... ok, never mind). When we ever get to a situation where we are short on resources a new technology provides a solution.
Look at the ages of man - Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age... as humans develop so does technology and we survive.

In a nutshell we have never ever been resource compromised.

Anyone who presents an argument that we will be is basing that argument on speculation.

In 1924 people were making arguments about Peak Copper causing the end of the Electric Age. Did this happen? Clearly not.

Your grammar belies your attitude. It would have been better to say " if people had been having more children".
On average most have less than two. This is a problem.

There is no evidence of any resource strain, or that one was coming.

Ah yes, personal desire trumps Darwin when the species wants to go extinct.

In approximately 112 years, our population has grown by 350%. Do you honestly think that resources won't become strained? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

And there will always be a biological desire to have children. It's innate. Does everyone want children? No. Does everyone want a lot of children? No. But the number of people who do want at least one child will always be greater than the number of people who don't want any children.

And if the time comes that the last man and woman on Earth are sitting in a cave, knowing they are the last two humans, I doubt the woman is going to get all 'feminist' and say no, she doesn't want to help repopulate the Earth because she wants a career instead.

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 12:48pm

Hi Festus,

Just because we haven't ruined our natural resource system entirely before doesn't mean it can't happen.

There is optimism and there is wastefulness.

I would be devout by Irish standards but I cannot condone ignorant overuse of natural resources. I would defer to common sense and preserve rather than risk all that we have.

We must be responsible. I have a scientific and a religious mind. Both instruct me to be mindful and respectful of my surroundings. Both suggest to me that currently we are over burdening our support system.

It would be wiser in my opinion to reduce economic and human population growth until we have time to improve safety and quality of food supply and living environment. We have the ability to do this. The question is, do we have the will and discipline?

I believe in God. I want for a good and stable life for myself, my family and humanity. Burning through what we've been given carelessly is wrong in my opinion.

I'll check out your video when I get home.

prinz · 09-03-2012 1:14pm

Penn wrote: »

This happens in marriage. Married women can have careers too. Married women can have a career and children, married women can have children and no job, married women can have a job and no children..

All true, but you have to accept that the resources are not being provided to allow people stay at home and have kids and take care of them. We have a situation that is a vicious cycle. For the vast majority of people in the west one salary is not enough to have a comfortable family life anymore. My father was the sole bread winner in our house. He was a low level civil servant in the emergency services. He supported a wife, and six kids on his salary. We had one care and one house. All of whom have gone through third level and are all in full employment at the moment. Do you think a man with on the average industrial wage could do that today?

So you have couples where both parties are working. Now you the high costs of childcare. Then to have their kids taken care of in childcare both parties in the couple have to work. So you are in a Catch 22. You can't live well on one salary, and you have to sacrifice a decent family life to get two salaries.

It is interesting because yesterday was Internation Womens Day, I happened to catch some of a Sky News piece at lunch time there was a female doctor on. IIRC she was the head of some GP organisation in England. She recounted a story of going for a job once where she was offered the position on the basis she agreed not to have any kids for x number of years. She told them to stick their job. She said many women were being forced into a career or family choice, and that's not on. As a doctor she also pointed out the affects of women especially delaying starting a family until they establish themselves in a career, then when they try for kids they have difficulties conceiving. She was arguing that motherhood and fatherhood should not be seen as a competition to the labour market, but should be valued by society and employers for the benefits it brings.

Penn wrote: »

2. Affluence - Decadence - (fewer children - invest more in each child).
Better for society. If more time and resources can be spent on a smaller amount of children, those children could be better educated and provided for...

That's very true... but that's not where we are headed. People aren't encouraged to put time and resources into their kids. People are encouraged to be in the workforce as much as possible. Family life is a distant second.

Penn wrote: »

3. Artificial birth control - coupled with sexual promiscuity - sexual revolution. So people shouldn't be allowed to have sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child? Nonsense. If people didn't want to have a child, they wouldn't have sex. Now, if people didn't want to have a child, they can still have sex but not have a child. If anything, sexual promiscuity has brought a lot of children into the world by accident....

It has also kept a lot out of it because of the people above who focus on careers etc instead of having kids. No one is saying people should be banned from sex unless it's procreative but you can't deny the effect the widespread use of contraception and it's accompanying association with so-called women's lib and women entering the workforce.

Penn wrote: »

4. Cohabitation = less children.
Many, many couples live together unmarried and have children. Marriage doesn't determine the number of kids you have, your desire to have kids determines how many kids you have.....

A lot more than your desire to have kids determines how many and when you have them. I'd say it's in the halfpenny place to financial and employment considerations. I'd love to have kids. I wish I had kids, but the sad reality is myself and my wife aren't in a position to afford starting a family together. We're late 20's and we can't afford kids unless one or both of us becoming dependant on state welfare. How is that good for society going forward? By the time my wife's parents were our age they had three kids.

Penn wrote: »

As for what religion I subscribe to, the answer would be none. But I fail to see what religion has to do with this..

In a way you are right. It's as much of social and humanity issue. Where religion does come into it is actually raising it as an issue. When was the last time you heard of a political party raising the number of kids in society and the family unit around them as an issue for our society? In Ireland it's not that big of a problem yet, but in other countries in western Europe it's a huge problem where social welfare starts are starting to creak under the pressure of decades of encouraging people not to have kids. Suddenly people are starting to wonder...eh well who is going to be paying the taxes to support the older generations.... oops..

Penn wrote: »

People are having as many children nowadays as they want to have and can have..

People aren't. People are being funnelled into those decisions by external pressures, financial and employment being the major ones.

Penn wrote: »

As for having more children, that's really down to the individuals involved, not society or religion. If a couple only wants two children, being made to feel like they should have more is unfair. People are having the amount of children they want to have.

You are missing the point. People who want to have kids should be encouraged and adequately supported. It's not about making people feel like they should have more. It's about showing people that it is a valid choice and one that society respects. At the moment kids are more and more in the western being seen as a burden and inconvenience. People who have kids and rear them properly should be appreciated as making a valid contribution to society, but at the moment society only sees workers and economic output as valid contributions, so kids and parenthood gets sacrificed.

tricky D · 09-03-2012 1:38pm

Festus wrote: »

Look at humans. Has there ever been a case when we ran out of resources and suffered a population crash because of it?

No. There are a number of reasons for this.

Not correct. There are plenty of civilisations which have crashed due to resource depletion: Mayans, Easter Island, Mesopotamia to name a few.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/01/lessons-history-collapsed-civilisations

Anyway I would worry about nature's backlash using germ warfare on our activities more than anything else.

Festus · 09-03-2012 1:40pm

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Hi Festus,

Hi Atomicjuicer,

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Just because we haven't ruined our natural resource system entirely before doesn't mean it can't happen.

There is optimism and there is wastefulness.

I would be devout by Irish standards but I cannot condone ignorant overuse of natural resources. I would defer to common sense and preserve rather than risk all that we have.

We must be responsible. I have a scientific and a religious mind. Both instruct me to be mindful and respectful of my surroundings. Both suggest to me that currently we are over burdening our support system.

It would be wiser in my opinion to reduce economic and human population growth until we have time to improve safety and quality of food supply and living environment. We have the ability to do this. The question is, do we have the will and discipline?

I believe in God. I want for a good and stable life for myself, my family and humanity. Burning through what we've been given carelessly is wrong in my opinion.

I'll check out your video when I get home.

Thank you but it's not my video.

In the meantime you could check this out. It's written by a journalist for Forbes - if anyone can let me know their religious credentials that would be cool.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/06/singapore-population-economy-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html

tommy2bad · 09-03-2012 1:43pm

Zombrex wrote: »

What an odd thread, Catholics arguing we should be having more sex.

Lets get those teen pregnancy figures back up to what they were in the 1960s, that should sort this population problem out :P

If you need help with that !

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 1:52pm

Festus wrote: »

Hi Atomicjuicer,

Thank you but it's not my video.

In the meantime you could check this out. It's written by a journalist for Forbes - if anyone can let me know their religious credentials that would be cool.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/06/singapore-population-economy-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html

I meant the video you linked to - thanks for the article. It's relevant to get a single country perspective but I'm more concerned about global matters and total human population. In some countries the balance is not proportionate which is not ideal I agree.

I'm a Roman Catholic.

Festus · 09-03-2012 2:15pm

Penn wrote: »

In approximately 112 years, our population has grown by 350%. Do you honestly think that resources won't become strained? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it won't happen.

And there will always be a biological desire to have children. It's innate. Does everyone want children? No. Does everyone want a lot of children? No. But the number of people who do want at least one child will always be greater than the number of people who don't want any children.

And if the time comes that the last man and woman on Earth are sitting in a cave, knowing they are the last two humans, I doubt the woman is going to get all 'feminist' and say no, she doesn't want to help repopulate the Earth because she wants a career instead.

You are talking extinction. That won't happen in the short run unless we do it to ourselves.
In the long run while there is always the possibility of some natural or external disaster befalling mankind it is equally unlikely that it would cause extinction.

The problem with your argument is that you have not done your research.
You are also forgetting that humans thrive on challenges. The need for alternative energy for example is just such a challenge. It will be met.

You are also forgetting that there is no resource shortage. Very very few elements leave the planet forever and those that do have a negligible impact.

Much of the ground beneath us is unexplored and it is unknown what else is down there. Granted we are currently limited in how far down or where we can go but who is to say that will not change.

To replace the population we need every couple (biologically male and biologically female) to have more than two children. When you take into account those that do not want to have children and those that cannot have children then those that are having children need to have much more than two.

One of the things you should be looking at and questioning is why do people not want to have children.

If we are a functional evolutionary species then the desire not to reproduce is indicative of a desire for extinction.

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 2:22pm

Couldn't disagree more with your last post Festus.

We are running out of food resources. There are mass extinctions of necessary parts of the food chain every day. If we lose bees for example well probably face an extinction challenge.

The desire to preserve the species is more functional than personal desire. Currenty we are stretching the limits of the eco-system. We need a reduction to survive - an all out end to reproduction is of course equally foolish.

Festus · 09-03-2012 2:29pm

tricky D wrote: »

Not correct. There are plenty of civilisations which have crashed due to resource depletion: Mayans, Easter Island, Mesopotamia to name a few.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/01/lessons-history-collapsed-civilisations

Anyway I would worry about nature's backlash using germ warfare on our activities more than anything else.

Localized events are not the same as global events. You could argue that the Irish Civilization collapsed over one hundred years ago, when what really happened was we moved, changed our language and religion and generally either became British or American.

Have you watched the video yet?

Festus · 09-03-2012 2:32pm

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more with your last post Festus.

We are running out of food resources. There are mass extinctions of necessary parts of the food chain every day. If we lose bees for example well probably face an extinction challenge.

The desire to preserve the species is more functional than personal desire. Currenty we are stretching the limits of the eco-system. We need a reduction to survive - an all out end to reproduction is of course equally foolish.

You are free to disagree but consider http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328543.600-the-future-is-bright-for-humanity.html

Then please present your evidence of mass extinctions of necessary parts of the food chain.

If true then is the end not nigh?

tricky D · 09-03-2012 2:44pm

As they are akin to closed systems they are analogous. I haven't and won't bother watching the video as the arguments are too selective and narrow in scope otherwise they wouldn't (and don't) merely support the agenda.

prinz · 09-03-2012 2:48pm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

Some interesting stuff from the UN there. I particularly like the suggestion of raising the retirement age to 75... that's sure to go down well. On the other hand talk about having kids and stay at home parents and you'll get marginalised and scoffed at, particularly if you are a woman.

Keeping retirement and health-care systems for older persons solvent in the face of declining and ageing populations, for example, constitutes
a new situation that poses serious challenges for Governments and civil society.

Indeed it does. Then why are vast numbers of goverments in the developed world barely touching on the issue at best or ignoring the issue at worst and leaving it to the likes of the RCC to bring up?

Some other related topics..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world/europe/21iht-LETTER.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 2:49pm

Festus wrote: »

You are free to disagree but consider http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328543.600-the-future-is-bright-for-humanity.html

Then please present your evidence of mass extinctions of necessary parts of the food chain.

If true then is the end not nigh?

I like that newscientist article - I take a cautionary view of the future - not pessimistic, and tentatively optimistic provided we are sensible.

I believe the damage done to the food chain and eco-system is reversible or fixable but we need to give these systems an opportunity. Further squandering of damaged systems would not be (in my own personal view) wise.

Hopefully I'm wrong - but better safe than sorry no?

I believe humanity will survive, but we must take protective action.

Festus · 09-03-2012 2:49pm

tricky D wrote: »

As they are akin to closed systems they are analogous. I haven't and won't bother watching the video as the arguments are too selective and narrow in scope otherwise they wouldn't (and don't) merely support the agenda.

How do you know the arguments are selective and narrow in scope without watching the video?

tricky D · 09-03-2012 2:56pm

It's a bog standard confirmation bias modus operandi.

Anita Blow · 09-03-2012 4:03pm

Festus wrote: »

You are also forgetting that there is no resource shortage. Very very few elements leave the planet forever and those that do have a negligible impact.

I'm sure there are some people in Africa who would disagree.
Take a look at the list of countries by birth rate
The ones at the top are hardly economic miracles.

Festus · 09-03-2012 4:12pm

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm sure there are some people in Africa who would disagree.
Take a look at the list of countries by birth rate
The ones at the top are hardly economic miracles.

Aren't you forgetting something?

What is the death rate and what is the projected death rate due to aids in the case of children born with it?

Have you watched the video yet?

Anita Blow · 09-03-2012 4:56pm

Festus wrote: »

Aren't you forgetting something?

What is the death rate and what is the projected death rate due to aids in the case of children born with it?

Have you watched the video yet?

Nope I'm not forgetting it. The death rate is similarly high and a direct result of the high birth rate and inability of the resources to cope with that birth rate. If African countries were to lower their birthrate, they would be able to grow and prosper. Instead we have a terrible situation where couples have large families, most of which have terrible standards of living and just barely survive.
As for the spread of aids, that's as a result of the big birth rate which you are advocating, and the lack of artificial birth control which you blame for depopulation.

You can't deny that we live in a world of finite resources and you're basing your arguments on the fact that whenever a challenge arises, we can just magic up some technology to make the problem go away. That isn't always going to happen and it's a terrible gamble to place the future of humanity on.
At a time when we're rapidly closing in on peak oil while most first world countries are still getting ~90% of their energy from these fossil fuels, it's ridiculous to advocate increasing the burden on our energy production while we have no real plan for what we'll do when the oil runs out.

Benny_Cake · 09-03-2012 5:32pm

prinz wrote: »

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

Some interesting stuff from the UN there. I particularly like the suggestion of raising the retirement age to 75... that's sure to go down well. On the other hand talk about having kids and stay at home parents and you'll get marginalised and scoffed at, particularly if you are a woman.

You make a good point about the how difficult it is for one parent to stay at home and look after their kids - be they a man or a woman. For most parents the choice of whether to stay at home or work simply doesn't exist. There is something very sad about this, and I would largely see this as being a classic example of how ultra-capitalist, dog eat dog economics work in practice. I wouldn't necessarily tie it in with a declining birthrate though.

Keeping retirement and health-care systems for older persons solvent in the face of declining and ageing populations, for example, constitutes
a new situation that poses serious challenges for Governments and civil society.

Indeed it does. Then why are vast numbers of goverments in the developed world barely touching on the issue at best or ignoring the issue at worst and leaving it to the likes of the RCC to bring up?

Some other related topics..

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/world/europe/21iht-LETTER.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all

I would imagine that governments ignore the potential timebomb of an aging population with inadequate pension provision for the simple reason that it isn't an immediate problem for them, and that someone else will come up with an idea when the time comes. Political expediency and the classics human failing of being unable to see the long-term picture.

Having said that, I don't think everyone having more kids is a viable solution either. There are increasingly strains on our resources, and while human ingenuity has gone quite a way in helping us feed a growing population (the green revolution), this has come at a cost - increased water consumption and loss of biodiversity. We can't trust on our luck to hold. In the long run, designing and economy which doesn't hold to human greed as it's prime motivating factor and that doesn't go into crisis every time economic growth drops 1-2% seems to be a far more preferable solution to me. For example, someone in their late 60s might like to continue to work on reduced hours which would reduce their pension costs.

Atomicjuicer · 09-03-2012 6:36pm

This thread has brought up a lot of discussion about some different topics which is good. I think we need more debate about how to change humanity for the better.

Stereomaniac · 09-03-2012 6:45pm

Exactly. This thread is interesting, if nothing else. Some pretty interesting articles being posted. Also, I have to agree with Benny there about why governments don't address the issue.

Festus · 09-03-2012 8:19pm

Anita Blow wrote: »

Nope I'm not forgetting it. The death rate is similarly high and a direct result of the high birth rate and inability of the resources to cope with that birth rate. If African countries were to lower their birthrate, they would be able to grow and prosper. Instead we have a terrible situation where couples have large families, most of which have terrible standards of living and just barely survive.
As for the spread of aids, that's as a result of the big birth rate which you are advocating, and the lack of artificial birth control which you blame for depopulation.

Africa does not have an over population issue. It does have some very complicated issues but population is not one of them. If anything Africa suffers primarily from the racism of the west. The population density is one tenth that of the UK and the UK is for from being at capacity, yet the USAID spends nearly 400 million dollars a year on contraceptive programs.
There is no shortage of contraceptives in Africa but there is a severe shortage of medical supplies to cope with diseases like malaria.
Just look at the inserts in magazines looking for money to sort out medical issues. Are any of these for contraceptives?

Anita Blow wrote: »

You can't deny that we live in a world of finite resources and you're basing your arguments on the fact that whenever a challenge arises, we can just magic up some technology to make the problem go away. That isn't always going to happen and it's a terrible gamble to place the future of humanity on.

No one is saying that resources are infinite. Yes there may some day come a problem that technology or human ingenuity cannot overcome, but we are not there yet.
Many of the worlds problems are not due to resource issues but can be laid squarely at the feet of governments who either abuse their powers or implement policies that are based on bad information, pseudo science or misguided ideologies.

Anita Blow wrote: »

At a time when we're rapidly closing in on peak oil while most first world countries are still getting ~90% of their energy from these fossil fuels, it's ridiculous to advocate increasing the burden on our energy production while we have no real plan for what we'll do when the oil runs out.

I'm not a big fan of oil or electricity. The sooner we lose one or the other the better.

Just how big is the Sahara? Could we not put a giant solar array across it?
There are vast areas of Siberia that are unpopulated that could also support a very large set of solar panels.
The Poles equally if we werent so bloody sentimental about them.

Fine, these ideas may be off the wall but they are ideas, and the Sahara one has been looked at and may happen yet. It could supply both Africa and Europe indefinitely.

Similar plans are being reviewed for American deserts.

They are viable, all it takes is political will.

Now, have you watched the video yet?

Doc Farrell · 09-03-2012 11:54pm

Well, it was certainly a fascinating documentary. Although funded by family focused organisations and individuals it would be foolish to decry the academic qualifications of most of the contributors.
I am particularly ignorant on this subject so will have to refrain from pontificating.

Here are contrary opinions on the subject of a potential demographic winter along with the world birth rates kindly provided by the CIA.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/03/the-demographic-winter-and-the

http://www.populationmedia.org/2010/01/19/ignore-the-bluster-of-demographic-winter-alarmists/

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

I was nettled by a quote from a Latvian politician when she said that the Latvian population declined by 13 % between 1989 and 2002. I suspect a sizable percentage of that 13% are here in Ireland and pushing prams!

Although it appears impossible to argue that western European populations are not aging it seems to me too early to understand how the immigration of North Africans and soon Asians and in particular, Chinese, will affect those figures.

Welcome to the Real World

Comments