Welcome to the Real World

Festus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.