NFP, Overpopulation, and the Environment.

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,573.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As the title says, I'm curious if the Church has ever directly issued any statements, essays, research or anything of the kind that would discuss how they reconcile these concepts? I often think about how overpopulation contributes to destruction of the environment. In fact, I can't recall the source off-hand, but I read somewhere that a Cardinal who was involved with Pope Francis' research team that worked on his encyclical Laudato si' commented that the Earth is overpopulated by roughly five billion people (that was the inference as this person said the planet could only viably sustain roughly 2-2.5 billion or so).

Anyway, whether those numbers are factual or not, I do think we're struggling with overpopulation and it's only going to get exponentially worse in the future if things continue status quo. That being said, I wonder how the Church would reconcile the concept of being good stewards of creation and ensuring that we honor God by properly taking care of this world, and not interfering with the his divine work in procreation?

Is there a priority here? Maybe the environment is important inasmuch as it doesn't interfere with human reproduction?

I don't mean to be crass or rude, I'm genuinely curious what the Church has said—if anything—or would say on this matter. Speculation is fine; educated guesses preferred.

Cheers all. :)
 

LivingWordUnity

Unchanging Deposit of Faith, Traditional Catholic
May 10, 2007
24,496
11,193
✟213,086.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Here's what the Church has said about it:

Pope St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995)

16. Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify threats and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This question arises in different ways in different parts of the world. In the rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand, generally have a high rate of population growth, difficult to sustain in the context of low economic and social development, and especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of over-population in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level-serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources-anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.

Contraception, sterilization and abortion are certainly part of the reason why in some cases there is a sharp decline in the birthrate. It is not difficult to be tempted to use the same methods and attacks against life also where there is a situation of "demographic explosion".

The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way. They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person's inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive programme of birth control. Even the economic help which they would be ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an anti-birth policy.

17. Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle, if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard-of numerical proportion, and the fact that they receive widespread and powerful support from a broad consensus on the part of society, from widespread legal approval and the involvement of certain sectors of health-care personnel.

As I emphatically stated at Denver, on the occasion of the Eighth World Youth Day, "with time the threats against life have not grown weaker. They are taking on vast proportions. They are not only threats coming from the outside, from the forces of nature or the 'Cains' who kill the 'Abels'; no, they are scientifically and systematically programmed threats. The twentieth century will have been an era of massive attacks on life, an endless series of wars and a continual taking of innocent human life. False prophets and false teachers have had the greatest success". Aside from intentions, which can be varied and perhaps can seem convincing at times, especially if presented in the name of solidarity, we are in fact faced by an objective "conspiracy against life", involving even international Institutions, engaged in encouraging and carrying out actual campaigns to make contraception, sterilization and abortion widely available. Nor can it be denied that the mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy, by lending credit to that culture which presents recourse to contraception, sterilization, abortion and even euthanasia as a mark of progress and a victory of freedom, while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.

(Read more)​

Also see:
Population Research Institute
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sumwear

Newbie
Jul 23, 2012
1,982
391
✟4,400.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
I don't know of anything official from a Catholic perspective involving overpopulation. I just know that - in Catholicism - everything is up to the parents in how big they want their family.

Though, there are problems in the world where people will mention a problem and try to pinpoint the blame on overpopulation, but really there is no merit to that claim. For instance, we are ravaging poorer countries of precious minerals which in itself is a problem to the environment. However, it would be folly to suggest that is a problem due to overpopulation as those areas in the world that do show fertility rates to be highest pale in comparison to areas where the fertility rates are the lowest with regards to consumerism. Same with regards to energy consumption. While the fertility rate in the U.S. [Depending where you look] has remained steady or slightly increased, we ourselves are still guilty of using 25% of the world's energy [Both renewable and non]. Think about it. 300,000,000+ people in the world use 25% of the energy that is shared with 7 billion people. And most energy usage is from areas where the population is seeing stagnation due to low fertility rates.

The one area where I really believed was a result of overpopulation was today's meat consumption, as you see deforestation take place to make room for livestock and the methane released from cows. Both having adverse effects on the environment. That is until you look at the numbers, where meat consumption per capita has greatly increased across the board. Meaning areas that haven't and aren't seeing population spikes are still contributing to a great increase in meat consumption. That is more to due to meat being more readily available, being cheaper, and all of us ditching a non meat alternative from time to time and instead opting to overindulge ourselves in meat.

Then you have other elements with regards to areas where there are high fertility rates. War, famine, disease, poor health care, natural calamities, and the like. An unfortunate side effect in those areas but they do take a toll on those people living in those areas. And as I have mentioned slightly in my post, those developed nations are having bad replacement rates. Something - I believe - the late John Paul II alluded to. Where the southern hemisphere is seeing rapid birth rates, the opposite is occurring in the northern part. Which is why you see northern, developed countries extend a helping hand to those people. And it's actually those migrants, refugees that may aid in bettering the replacement rates.

All in all, we do have a responsibility to take care of Earth. But do I believe the way we present overpopulation as the way we do today as the real culprit? No. If anything, I see developed countries being guilty of consumerism and gluttony and then trying to pass of the blame to poorer countries or trying to equalize the blame worldwide.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The earth could support many more people if everyone lived in a 200 square foot tiny house, ate a vegetarian diet, and used public transportation.

That's one reason why in Laudato Si the Pope says that solar and wind energy and GMO seeds won't solve the whole problem. Changing your lifestyle doesn't mean driving an electric car 20,000 miles a year. It means driving an electric car 10,000 miles a year and carpooling, walking, and using public transportation. (And it probably means more spartan accommodations than that....)
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Overpopulation is an illusion as any analysis of Malthus and his false theories will show. Depending on the level of development (and other factors including child mortality rates), people will tend to have more or few children. The areas of the world with the highest birthrates are NOT the countries that contribute most to the degradation of the environment.

The degradation of the environment is primarily due to the non-sustainability of consumption in developed countries, not to overpopulation in poorer countries.

In fact, throughout the developed world, it is UNDERPOPULATION that is the problem. There are considerable incentives in many developed countries to have more children. Consider that Germany is welcoming in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.

NFP is merely a method that allows parents to make choices within the framework of the Church's teachings with regard to contraception and the teaching that we are not called to breed like rabbits.
===================
BOTTOM LINE

Yes, we should act to conserve the precious environment, especially the rainforests of the world. More importantly, the US should do what it can to have a smaller carbon footprint and in its use of the resources of other countries. As an aside, we might stop using ethanol, one of the worst ideas of the past 50 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeK
Upvote 0

Cos-play

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
777
348
58
✟2,816.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Quick answer:

No, of which I am aware. And I've sort of been looking for something most of my life.

Look:

Overpopulation is a serious problem. The whole "there's enough space, enough food, etc" argument is philosophical in nature and doesn't take into account real world circumstances, like for instance, actual population distribution on the planet,goverment, borders, that pesky sort of stuff.

Also, contrary to the above comment, so called underdeveloped countries are horrible polluters. The destruction of forests, inefficient use of fuels and resources are causing all kinds of problems.

And to this that the living standard typical in the more impoverished areas of Appalachia (where the average income is about $14,000 a year), would required the resources of 3 Earths to sustain if given the the entire world population.

And that doesn't even mention access to clean water

And that doesn't include any effects on population shift due to global climate change.

We've got a problem. And the Church doesn't have a practical solution.

I don't necessarily blame them for not having one, but the truth is

They don't.
 
Upvote 0

Sumwear

Newbie
Jul 23, 2012
1,982
391
✟4,400.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Quick answer:

No, of which I am aware. And I've sort of been looking for something most of my life.

Look:

Overpopulation is a serious problem. The whole "there's enough space, enough food, etc" argument is philosophical in nature and doesn't take into account real world circumstances, like for instance, actual population distribution on the planet,goverment, borders, that pesky sort of stuff.

Also, contrary to the above comment, so called underdeveloped countries are horrible polluters. The destruction of forests, inefficient use of fuels and resources are causing all kinds of problems.

And to this that the living standard typical in the more impoverished areas of Appalachia (where the average income is about $14,000 a year), would required the resources of 3 Earths to sustain if given the the entire world population.

And that doesn't even mention access to clean water

And that doesn't include any effects on population shift due to global climate change.

We've got a problem. And the Church doesn't have a practical solution.

I don't necessarily blame them for not having one, but the truth is

They don't.

The biggest users of energy are in fact developed nations. The U.S. alone uses 25% of that energy. Developed countries are also responsible for exploiting developing countries of their resources, which has caused another set of headaches.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...ping-countries-high-price-global-mineral-boom

Of developing countries, India and China are the biggest culprits of CO2 emissions. However, both the U.S. and the European Union produce more CO2 emissions than India, and Russia and Japan are not too far off from India. Actually, if you were to combine both China and India, they produce less than the U.S., Russia, European Union, and Japan, combined, and that's with half the population of the other two as well.

The one area that is a cause for concern is deforestation.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The biggest users of energy are in fact developed nations. The U.S. alone uses 25% of that energy. Developed countries are also responsible for exploiting developing countries of their resources, which has caused another set of headaches.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...ping-countries-high-price-global-mineral-boom

Of developing countries, India and China are the biggest culprits of CO2 emissions. However, both the U.S. and the European Union produce more CO2 emissions than India, and Russia and Japan are not too far off from India. Actually, if you were to combine both China and India, they produce less than the U.S., Russia, European Union, and Japan, combined, and that's with half the population of the other two as well.

The one area that is a cause for concern is deforestation.

When we continue to criticize India and China, we might recall that on a per capita basis, they are the 127th and the 55th country in terms of CO2. Yes, they need to do more, especially with regard to using more non-coal sources of energy. Our usage per capita was much higher when we were as undeveloped as they are. In fact, our current per capita usage is much higher.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

The US and the EU (and Australia) should continue to try to have India and China reduce emissions. However, the more sever problem is closer to home.
 
Upvote 0

Cos-play

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
777
348
58
✟2,816.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The biggest users of energy are in fact developed nations. The U.S. alone uses 25% of that energy. Developed countries are also responsible for exploiting developing countries of their resources, which has caused another set of headaches.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...ping-countries-high-price-global-mineral-boom

Of developing countries, India and China are the biggest culprits of CO2 emissions. However, both the U.S. and the European Union produce more CO2 emissions than India, and Russia and Japan are not too far off from India. Actually, if you were to combine both China and India, they produce less than the U.S., Russia, European Union, and Japan, combined, and that's with half the population of the other two as well.

The one area that is a cause for concern is deforestation.

Interesting thing about pollution America causes.

If you break it down and look at it the biggest polluter in America produces almost half of all the pollution made by the USA.

And that organization is:

The US military.

If we weren't maintaining an ecomonic empire for international corporations we'd have a better chance of keep our energy use and pollution down to something reasonable
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The one area that is a cause for concern is deforestation.

I agree. And this is why we should be strong supporters of maintaining the forests that we have. However, IMHO, the most serious problem is the preservation of rain forests where over 1/2 of the species of the world live (and nowhere else).
 
Upvote 0

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,517
55,211
Woods
✟4,585,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have read over and over again that being a vegetarian is a first world luxury. Most people in the world simply cannot be a vegetarian even if they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
  • Like
Reactions: benedictaoo
Upvote 0

Cos-play

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
777
348
58
✟2,816.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I have read over and over again that being a vegetarian is a first world luxury. Most people in the world simply cannot be a vegetarian even if they wanted to.

That is really beside the point (or more to the point depending on how you look at it)

The best way to ensure resource distribution and food supply is for us all to have a plant based diet. But that requires coordination of food supply and worldwide collaboration.

Two things that aren't going to happen as a practical matter.

So, here we are again with an intractable population issue with no clear solution.
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That is really beside the point (or more to the point depending on how you look at it)

The best way to ensure resource distribution and food supply is for us all to have a plant based diet. But that requires coordination of food supply and worldwide collaboration.

Two things that aren't going to happen as a practical matter.

So, here we are again with an intractable population issue with no clear solution.

If there's no clear solution, and we reject possible solutions as impractical, then the best thing to do is to move onto other matters where we can actually solve things.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,517
55,211
Woods
✟4,585,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think it is more practical to look at the dietary needs of the people in various parts of the world and eliminate poverty first. Until we figure out how to do that there is not going to be any feasible solutions to cleaning up our planet, clean energy, etc. Until everyone has clean water sources and food. These other things will follow and will be able to be perfected. Right now, nobody is standing on the same playing field as far as basic needs go. Until then, diet can not be adjusted and neither can anything else. Imo, eliminating poverty to a level where at least people have basic needs is the key so we can implement everything else that would sustain and improve living conditions for all. Man and beast.

That has to be the priority before we say everyone must be vegetarian and live in 200 sq ft homes.

But that is also going to need a change of heart globally.

That is really beside the point (or more to the point depending on how you look at it)

The best way to ensure resource distribution and food supply is for us all to have a plant based diet. But that requires coordination of food supply and worldwide collaboration.

Two things that aren't going to happen as a practical matter.

So, here we are again with an intractable population issue with no clear solution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It takes a lot of water, grain, and time to raise a meat-producing animal--cow, pig, chicken, turkey--compared to producing an equivalent amount of protein from rice, beans, quinoa, etc.

The most efficient way to feed 7.1 billion people is with a plant and grain-based diet.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I guess I can understand the purpose of the Church developing an understanding about the issue (it identifies the problem, if nothing else) but the fact is that the places that are most overpopulated are mostly areas where the Church has the least influence.

In other words, the Western world isn't the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benedictaoo
Upvote 0

AvilaSurfer

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 14, 2015
9,736
4,784
NO
✟928,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It takes a lot of water, grain, and time to raise a meat-producing animal--cow, pig, chicken, turkey--compared to producing an equivalent amount of protein from rice, beans, quinoa, etc.

The most efficient way to feed 7.1 billion people is with a plant and grain-based diet.
The most efficient way to feed 7.1 billion people is to get out of the way and let farmers and ranchers do their jobs.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stray bullet

God Made Me A Skeptic
Nov 16, 2002
14,875
906
✟20,457.00
Marital Status
Private
It takes a lot of water, grain, and time to raise a meat-producing animal--cow, pig, chicken, turkey--compared to producing an equivalent amount of protein from rice, beans, quinoa, etc.

The most efficient way to feed 7.1 billion people is with a plant and grain-based diet.

Not every part of the world can produce crops. It wasn't that long ago that in America cattle were produced in areas that could not be used for farmland. Many arid environments can be used for producing meat where no food could otherwise be produced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: benedictaoo
Upvote 0