NFP, Overpopulation, and the Environment.

[Cos-play]

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.

If no food can be otherwise produced what are the animals eating ?

On arid land what are the drinking ?

The truth is that they are eating grains and drinking water that otherwise could be used by people to eat.

Those "areas that could not be used for farmland" of which you speak where publicly owned lands which ranchers leased as grazing land. Which turned out to be a mistake because without the grasses to hold the arid land in place the first serious drought that came along ended up blowing the top soil away.

Grazing cattle on arid land was one of the things that contributed to the dust-bowl in the 1930's. Which is way its no done much anymore.

 

[stray bullet]

If no food can be otherwise produced what are the animals eating ?

On arid land what are the drinking ?

Grass and other plants.

The truth is that they are eating grains and drinking water that otherwise could be used by people to eat.

No, for thousands of years nomads wandered the desert feeding their animals sparse fauna with wells and lakes between.

Those "areas that could not be used for farmland" of which you speak where publicly owned lands which ranchers leased as grazing land. Which turned out to be a mistake because without the grasses to hold the arid land in place the first serious drought that came along ended up blowing the top soil away.

Grazing cattle on arid land was one of the things that contributed to the dust-bowl in the 1930's. Which is way its no done much anymore.

No, the dust bowl was the result of farming areas for wheat and ripping up the soil and grass.

Before you reply to me, will you mail an ice-pick to me so I can stab it to my brain? Maybe that will help me understand your points.

 

[Cos-play]

Grass and other plants.



No, for thousands of years nomads wandered the desert feeding their animals sparse fauna with wells and lakes between.



No, the dust bowl was the result of farming areas for wheat and ripping up the soil and grass.

Before you reply to me, will you mail an ice-pick to me so I can stab it to my brain? Maybe that will help me understand your points.

I'm new here, do you always just sort of insult the posters on this board or are you just having a bad day?

 

[brewmama]

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.

In general environmentalists are wrong on so many scores that their credibility is seriously damaged. Overpopulation is one of their epic fails...

"To fully grasp how badly the “population bomb” predictions failed, you have to realize that the biggest demographic challenge today is declining population. Japan faces a demographic death spiral in which declining population and fewer workers leads to economic stagnation, which discourages people from having kids, which makes the problem worse. After decades of a “one child” policy, China’s working age population is also starting to decline, and it is conventional wisdom that the country is going to “grow old before it grows rich.
It’s quite possible that the demographic implosion won’t come or won’t be as bad as feared. We’ve seen a lot of cases so far where current trends do not continue. But it is important to grasp the actual consequences of the failed predictions about “overpopulation.” Countries that took these claims seriously, and especially those who enforced population control at the point of a gun, like China, are going to suffer real consequences from listening to the failed theories of Western alarmists."

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

 

[stray bullet]

I'm new here, do you always just sort of insult the posters on this board or are you just having a bad day?

I reply with facts.

Always,
--stray

 

[SolomonVII]

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.

I haven't really been able to discern a practical solution to those kinds of things in Catholic teaching either.
Another irony is how the environmentalist movement on the one hand has encouraged negative population growth in the first world for the sake of the environment, with the argument that the first world leaves bigger footprints. The irony is how this has led large numbers of third world populations migrating to the first world, keeping that first world footprint as big as possible.
The Church encourages both environmentalism, and this kind of immigration. That is all very commendable, I suppose, but there is no practical solution in that. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.

 

[Sumwear]

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.

I don't disagree. As is sometimes the norm when talking about developing nations, people pinpoint to China and then may try to extrapolate things across the board. That is not to downplay the significance of what is occurring in China, but yes, there is that almost 1.4 billion population that must be factored in.

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

Does the military get factored in with the totality of energy consumption within the U.S.? Would be a little relaxing if that were the case; a bit too unnerving if the military were kept separate.

 

[Cos-play]

I

Does the military get factored in with the totality of energy consumption within the U.S.? Would be a little relaxing if that were the case; a bit too unnerving if the military were kept separate.

The American military's energy and pollution everywhere on the planet gets factored into US energy consumption and pollution figures.

This is true of every military for every country as I understand.

 

[mark46]

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.

If the we keep increasing the consumption of meat in the third world, the effect on CO2 and water levels will be enormous.

 

[mark46]

I haven't really been able to discern a practical solution to those kinds of things in Catholic teaching either.
Another irony is how the environmentalist movement on the one hand has encouraged negative population growth in the first world for the sake of the environment, with the argument that the first world leaves bigger footprints. The irony is how this has led large numbers of third world populations migrating to the first world, keeping that first world footprint as big as possible.
The Church encourages both environmentalism, and this kind of immigration. That is all very commendable, I suppose, but there is no practical solution in that. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.

If environmentalists preach decreased population in the first world, their analysis is seriously flawed. This is really 1970's analysis. It is NOT commendable or reasonable. Most countries of the first world need MORE people.

The issue of carbon footprint (and increasingly water footprint) is indeed critical. There are many, many ways for those in the first world to decrease their carbon footprint without living in 200 square foot house and reducing the number of children that we have. Much of this has to do with our consumption patterns. Also, we have an effect through the pattern of our exports and imports. We could do much more with regarding to saving rainforest and stimulating better energy 9and environmental) technology in other parts of the world.

 

[SolomonVII]

Environmentalist have taught decreasing population in the First World. This was especially true in the 1970's, but nobody has recanted, and much is made of the amount of resources that a person in the first world uses compared to those in the have-not regions of the world.
Rainforest by and large are in territories that are outside of First World control.

 

[mark46]

[QUOTE="SolomonVII, post: 68703773, member: 12407"
Rainforest by and large are in territories that are outside of First World control.[/QUOTE]

Rainforests are not outside of the ability of first world countries to have influence or affect the rate of decline.

You seem to believe that leading environmentalists in 2015, including the pope, support the failed analysis of the 1970's. I'm sure there are some. After all, there are some who don't believe that the ice caps are decreasing or that Mount Kiliminjaro has as much snow covering it each year as decades ago.

 

[benedictaoo]

I'm new here, do you always just sort of insult the posters on this board or are you just having a bad day?

really now...

 

[benedictaoo]

False prophets and false teachers have had the greatest success

"conspiracy against life",

mass media are often implicated in this conspiracy

while depicting as enemies of freedom and progress those positions which are unreservedly pro-life.

John Paul ll was truly a brilliant man and also a prophet. We are seeing this now more than ever.

 

[SolomonVII]

Rainforests are not outside of the ability of first world countries to have influence or affect the rate of decline.

You seem to believe that leading environmentalists in 2015, including the pope, support the failed analysis of the 1970's. I'm sure there are some. After all, there are some who don't believe that the ice caps are decreasing or that Mount Kiliminjaro has as much snow covering it each year as decades ago.

I have no idea what leading environmentalists in 2015 support, or what the pope does or does not reject. If he has rejected that analysis, please quote him as doing so. Please quote anyone as doing so.

I do note that criticisms of the large ecological footprint left by large resource users in the first world does come into criticism of leading environmentalists in 2015, and that much like in the 1970's when overpopulation was the buzz, many people who want to be environmentally responsible limit their family size with that in mind. Birth rates in anything have gone down in that time frame,and not up, and leading environmentalists don't tend to say anything at all about that.
High rates of immigration from the third world into the first will negate any effects that that kind of decision will have.
Leading environmentalists will have to explain how First World indigenous are now allowed to increase their family size without any further concern for the environment if the point is that the analysis that leading environmentalists of former eras is to be seen as flawed failures.

 

[SolomonVII]

..

 

[mark46]

I have no idea what leading environmentalists in 2015 support, or what the pope does or does not reject.

I do note that criticisms of the large ecological footprint left by large resource users in the first world does come into criticism of leading environmentalists in 2015, and that much like in the 1970's when overpopulation was the buzz, many people who want to be environmentally responsible limit their family size with that in mind. Birth rates in anything have gone down in that time frame,and not up, and leading environmentalists don't tend to say anything at all about that.
High rates of immigration from the third world into the first will negate any effects that that kind of decision will have.
Leading environmentalists will have to explain how First World indigenous are now allowed to increase their family size without any further concern for the environment if the point is that the analysis that leading environmentalists of former eras is to be seen as flawed failures.

fair enough

My understanding is that family size is not a primary factor in environmental issues. The decrease in family size is a result of development throughout the world, including in the developing world.

I believe that we SHOULD address carbon footprint, as country, as a Church, and as families. IMHO, family size is not a significant issue. However, if we address the footprint of our family, we would certainly consider all the members of our family.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I believe that we SHOULD address carbon footprint, as country, as a Church, and as families. IMHO, family size is not a significant issue. However, if we address the footprint of our family, we would certainly consider all the members of our family.

That message is going to take root only in developed countries. That's a drop in the bucket and will make no difference. Until or unless the eastern world and the third world clean up their act, no action taken by the developed world will amount to anything.

 

[Cos-play]

really now...

I clean sock is a clean sock.

 

[SolomonVII]

fair enough

My understanding is that family size is not a primary factor in environmental issues. The decrease in family size is a result of development throughout the world, including in the developing world.

I believe that we SHOULD address carbon footprint, as country, as a Church, and as families. IMHO, family size is not a significant issue. However, if we address the footprint of our family, we would certainly consider all the members of our family.

You contradict yourself, unless you believe that we certainly should consider things that are not in your opinion significant issues.