www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Overpopulation, Or, Its Myth

Tantalizing thread title, isn't it?

I'll get to that below.


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/opinion/sachs-global-population/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Overpopulation is an interesting topic to me currently, and I was actually discussing such with a close friend a few days ago. What's truly amazing is that, for pretty much all of human existence, the population has been on a rise on a steady gradient...let's say, on a two- or three-degree gradient on a protractor. In the last century, that has exponentially exploded to about 80-degree gradient...basically, almost pointing straight up. Here's an example by way of chart: Human Population Growth Chart [google.com] (and, as you can see, even that chart is off; I don't know when it was made, but it puts the 7 billion mark in 2013, and in fact, it's about to occur, right now in 2011). In short, we're in the midst of an exponential population explosion the likes of which the human race has never even come close to experiencing. Heck, I'm only 24 years old, and I remember the birth of the six billionth person like it was yesterday. And here we are at just over a decade on, and we've added another billion.

What is the Catholic/Orthodox approach to these facts? I don't mean to debate about whether or not we're really going to overuse resources, whether or not overpopulation really is occurring (because I know there are some out there who do not believe it's occurring or that it is a problem). Let's just assume arguendo that in fact, overpopulation is a problem, and it is occurring in the manner stated.

The way I see it, it's either

#1. Catholic (and Orthodox?) married couples are of course obliged to keep the marital act open to the possibility of children; by simply acknowledging the fact that others will contracept and most unfortunately don't follow the teachings of the Church in this regard, the overpopulation problem will work itself out

#2. Overpopulation is a problem, but we are obliged to continue the approach mentioned in #1 despite the persecution of us by others who believe we are endangering the human race/planet

#3. The problem can be answered effectively by technological advancements and multinational efforts at creating and using more sustainable resources (or more advanced technology we haven't thought of yet).

Is it a proper response to not consider it a problem at all?

Other ideas?

Alexis

Good luck with that one this winter. At the same time, it seems we don't have the capital to do much in the way of transferring to such an energy future. And then there's Solyndra.

OTOH, these arguments have been made since the time we were about to hit the 3 billion mark and somehow we still continue to find ways to feed people. What I don't like about all of these discussions is the assumption that some elites have the answers and just need to impose them on the rest of the world regardless of their culture, beliefs, and aspirations.

Bob

I recall the overpopulation myth in the late 60's when I was in high school and I fell for it. We should have had mass starvation by now with barely enough room to stand.
So, add my vote to this isn't a problem that we can't handle. The more ominous questionis what are the elite powers in the ivory towers going to suggest is the solution?

I already pointed out some time back that DeutscheBank had conducted a study on population and fertility that concluded (a) that the global population was well below 7 billion and would likely never make it there; (b) that the global population had in fact stabilized and would likely begin to decline within 25 years; because (c) non-governmental organizations had systematically overestimated the effective fertility rates in many countries and not taken into account the impact of industrialization throughout much of the third world. Most striking was the case made for the fertility rates in China and India (which between them account for a third of the people in the world) being effectively much lower than the nominal Total Fertility Rate due to the imbalance of male to female births (a stagering 1.26-to-1 in China, as compared to the normal 1.05). Because men do not have children, the dearth of female children today suppresses total fertility beyond what it would normally be. Thus, China has a TFR of 1.7, but its effective fertility rate (EFR) is just 1.1; while in India the TFR is 2.5, but the EFR is just 2.1 (replacement). As a result, India will stop growing, while China will actually shrink--and very quickly, too.

I like where it says:
As if this belongs to a single person or a committee to organise. That's how you know the person writing is a both commie and a moron. It's like saying that making sure everybody on earth gets to bed on time and poops at least once a day is complex. Well, guess what, we'll all live our own lives if they'll just leave us the hell alone.

Oh, dear. Don't take this offensively guys, but these are the sort of tangential issues which I didn't want to get into - and which I knew people would take issue with in the article. But whether or not the author's views of what should be done about it are square (clearly, from a Catholic perspective, they're not - he implies contraception is a part of the answer, or would be if it were more widely available), or whether or not fossil fuel is something we should wean ourselves off of - is beside the point I was trying to make.

What I'm more interested in - if you will entertain me - is, assuming overpopulation is a problem, assuming that our resources will be greatly strained and every day moreso, what is the Catholic/Orthodox solution to this dilemma? Is it a dilemma at all?

For example, I wonder if Orthodox oikonomia would permit contraception in the case of an unopposed consensus that overpopulation is a direct threat to human existence (I doubt it). That's just an example of the realm I'm considering.

Alexis

P.S. Stuart, the fact remains true that, as I said, I'm 24 years old and I can easily recall the 6 billion mark...it was just over a decade ago. We're now approaching 7 billion. That's amazing growth. But I would welcome contrary statistics. But even this point of contention is tangential, I guess.

The "Catholic" or "Orthodox" perspective, I'd say, is that all people should look out for the good of the less-than-welloff and take care of the less fortunate. One should also not abuse the Church the Almighty blessed us as priest-stewards of by overuse of resources and/or polluting. (<-- to paraphrase both Rev. Fr. Thomas Loya [BCA] and Rev. Fr. Andrew Damick [OCA])

For what it's worth, St. John Chrysostom considered the commandment to be fruitful and multiply to be fulfilled, since mankind covered the face of the planet.

More pertinent to the question under discussion is the tendency of people to control their fertility since the history of mankind began. This seems to be driven principally by economic and psychological factors. In subsistence societies (i.e., in almost all societies up through the eighteenth century), the principal economic factor was food--would there be enough to feed all the open mouths? Unlike today, when famine is more a matter of maldistribution rather than an outright lack of food, for most of human history, one or two bad harvests in a row would equal starvation. Faced with that prospect, people stopped having babies--but not necessarily having sex. War, plague and other catastrophes had a similar effect: fertility rose when times were good, fell when times were bad.

Now, since around 1800--the beginning of the industrial revolution--there is an almost universal tendency for fertility to fall as urbanization and industrialization take hold. In the United States, fertility began dropping from the very first census, and the trend has held constant until quite recently, when fertility stabilized at around 2.0-2.1. There were steep drops in fertility for calamities such as the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and the Great Depression, offset somewhat by spikes in fertility immediately after the end of these (the Baby Boom being the last and greatest example), which only serves to smooth out the historical curve.

In other countries, the onset of industrialization is marked first by an uptick in fertility, as new wealth combined with better public health and sanitation cause people to have more children. But then it occurs to them that this might not make good economic sense.

In subsistence agrarian societies, children become net economic assets at a very early age. By age seven or eight, they can do chores around the farmhouse; by ten they can work in the fields. They aren't just a mouth to feed, they are human capital. The more children, the better off the family unit--more land can be cleared and cultivated, more animals raised, allowing for surpluses that can be traded for cash or manufactured items.

But in an industrial economy, children remain net liabilities for much longer. They have to go to school, get training, and take longer to become independent. Moreover, when they do, they aren't necessarily contributing to a family-based economic unit, but for themselves and their own families. So, the number of children that can be justified economically declines from four or five down to two or three. And, as medicine, hygiene and public health improved, it was no longer necessary to have three or four kids just to ensure that one survived, so the number of live births declined in proportion to the decline in infant mortality.

Post-industrial society places fertility under greater stress, since it is now perceived as necessary for children to have a minimum of twelve and preferably sixteen years of schooling, which means that kids don't become financially independent until in their early-to-mid twenties, while the costs associated with raising them have risen exponentially. In many societies, this factor has been exacerbated by extensive government health and pension systems, which render the elderly independent of family support (no need for kids to take care you you when you get old and feeble--the state will do it for you); and a collapse in societal morale (the feeling that the future is hopeless and there is no reason to invest in it). All of these have contributed to the demographic collapse of Europe, Japan and several other countries. China deliberately mutilated itself with the One Child Policy, while India is doing much the same with sex-selective abortion. Iran is a good example of a collapse in societal morale leading to demographic collapse: two decades ago, Iran's TFR was close to 7.0, and more than half of its population was below eighteen; today, its TFR is 1.7, and Iran will begin to age rapidly.

P.S. Stuart, the fact remains true that, as I said, I'm 24 years old and I can easily recall the 6 billion mark...it was just over a decade ago. We're now approaching 7 billion. That's amazing growth. But I would welcome contrary statistics. But even this point of contention is tangential, I guess.

The figure of six million was BS ten years ago. A number of demographers called it into question even then. If we have reached six even today, I would be surprised. You have to understand that there is a huge vested interest in "overpopulation", which is linked to non-governmental organizations, international development aid, family planning programs and the huge apparatus that supports it all. In the parts of the world where overpopulation is supposed to be a problem, statistics on fertility, live births, infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. are at best educated guesses. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa is an anarchic war zone in which central authority is weak at best; large areas are not under any governmental control at all, but we are expected to believe that accurate statistics emerge from there? I'm skeptical.

As to why one ought to believe an investment house such as DeutscheBank, rather than the WHO, the answer is simple: DB has skin in the game. It has to make accurate long-range financial projections in order to direct investments, and its clients would not back investments that do not take demographic projections into account. On the other hand, the WHO are just a lot of unaccountable bureaucrats whose principal interest is feathering their nests by ensuring continued funding for its programs--and the best way to do that is to create an environment of perpetual crisis.

The DB study can be referenced here [dbresearch.com] and here. [businessinsider.com]

A useful interactive graph showing fertility rates and population trends can be found at Gapminder World. [gapminder.org]

Stuart, I can't find any studies that question these population numbers. Do you have any studies that you know of, off the top of your head?

I don't really see what those three links offer, that question the current population estimates. Am i missing something?


Thanks

Here is a link that contains all the essential DB data:

The Human Race is Doomed [projectworldawareness.com]

This link contains some useful supplementary materials:

The End of Population Growth [asiabusinesscouncil.org]

Notice that investors are now becoming deeply alarmed by the prospect of shrinking populations, while NGOs and bureaucrats are still fixated on the myth of overpopulation.

Great, thanks.
I see what it is saying now. The population is based on the assumption that the average life expectancy is relatively high everywhere like it is in Japan and the fertility rate is relatively high everywhere (which it clearly is not) and gender ratios are more suited for population growth like Sweden.
A nice assumption, but wholly untrue.

What I'm more interested in - if you will entertain me - is, assuming overpopulation is a problem, assuming that our resources will be greatly strained and every day moreso, what is the Catholic/Orthodox solution to this dilemma? Is it a dilemma at all?

Michael Thoma gave the proper answer. Unless the Christian faith goes completely "PC" the answer is that we respond with the Corporal Acts of Mercy....feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit those imprisoned, etc

Our resources would only be strained if you believe that earth is a closed system. However, we live in a solar system consisting of a medium-size star, nine (go Pluto!) planets, several dozen moons, tens of thousands of asteroids, and millions upon millions of smaller objects, all of which are there for human beings to exploit. All the technology is available, it just has not become economically viable to go get it. But, when we do--energy in abundance, limitless mineral resources, and space beyond comprehension to accommodate the fecundity of the human race.

Necessity is the mother of invention as they say...