Topic: Darwinism
Old Myths Die Hard--Especially Overpopulation Many myths are still popular in the western culture--anthropogenic global warming, abstinence is outdated, etc... The one that never quits is that overpopulation exists.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Many still believe in myths. The myth of overpopulation is popular, but many look at the final numbers without looking at the trends. Many refuse to look at the falling birthrates and fertility rates.
Birth control, abortion, sterilization, and various contraception techniques have all dictated a declining population within a short period of time.By 2020 people will begin to see what the future holds, if it is not too late.
Each woman bearing 2.1 children is considered at the "breakeven" or "replacement" rate. Per the CIA ( World Factbook), in 2000 the replacement rate was 2.8 worldwide. In 2008, it was 2.6. If one simply extrapolates that number for eight years from 2008, one gets 2.4. A little math will easily dictate by the year 2200, we will likely be in a population freefall.
In the book by Phillip Longman (The Empty Cradle), China, Russia, and Europe are already reaching an inevitable economic crisis because of items of abortion and ageing. Abortion reduces the workforce, eliminates people who would solve crises encountered, and older people retire and reduce the available workforce.
According to real numbers by Steven Mosher (Demographic Winter), Italy, Spain, Russia, and even France could cease to exist in this century as we know them. CIA's fertility ranking in 2008 puts France at 1.98 below replacement. Australia is at 1.78, China is at 1.77, Russia is at 1.40, Spain and Italy are at 1.30, Japan is at 1.22, and Hong Kong is at 1.00.
Nobel Prize Economist winner (Gary Becker) notes 70 countries now have fertility rates below replacement (LifeNews//1/9/09). And only 6 months ago, that below- replacement rate was for only 59 nations (Demographic Winter trailer/ [link edited for length]).
In the US, this is even scarier than it sounds. Popular author Steven Kotler (blog: The Playing Field) believes the planet is running out of resources such as oil, food, water, and land. He wants to loose 4.4 billion people quickly, and wrote that jail time is the answer for having too many kids.
Paul Watson (Sea Shepherd Society) has called human beings the "AIDS of the Earth". Both Kotler and Watson think mandatory birth control is a great idea. Scientist Paul Erlich (Malthus wannabe) suggested compulsory birth regulation through the addition of temporary sterilants to food or water supplies. All of this is in his successful 1968 book, The Population Bomb.
Of course Malthus, Kotler, Erlich, and other doomsayers have all been proven stunningly wrong---especially over the last century. By pouring billions into anti-people organizations such as UNFPA and IPPF, we have been forcing population control programs on others, and not ourselves.
One always hears that over-population is directly due to poverty. It has been proven over and over that high human population has not caused poverty. Poverty has occurred because of bad economic policies and laws. We know that certain global health threats such as neonatal and maternal deaths to diarrhea, malaria, and other infectious diseases are creations of poverty.
In the 20th century we saw humanity quadruple to more than six billion. In that same time period, life span doubled to over sixty years, food production widely outstripped population growth, and global GDP per capita quintupled. Even if one looks at the long-term trend in grain prices over the last century, he will notice they have been heading steadily downward at a rate of 7-10% per decade (Nicholas Eberstadt/ American Enterprise Institute).
When God said in Genesis "Be fruitful and multiply", was He just speaking theoretically? Did He know with the gifts he gave to the earth, actually 10x the amount of people or more could live on earth with no problem? Did He realize that man has no business attempting to control other peoples' lives? Did He understand man's folly at population control could very well lead to the destruction of the human race? A true Christian realizes the last three interpretations are likely true.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-03-07 01:53:13
Yes, old myths die hard. For instance, Christianity is all about myth, and many of the myths that Christianity promotes are not only old (besides being mythical), they are often counter-productive. Christianity as it is practiced by the vast majority of Christians is certainly about old myths dying hard.
I keep hoping that Christianity today will grow up and join the 21st Century, and in some cases there are Christians who do just that, but there are also many, many Christians who are still rooted firmly in the backward thinking of the middle ages. It's pathetic, really.
You must remember thet Christiatnity is not a myth at all. Christ was even recorded by the elder Romans as having lived, been crucified, and had a body that was never found after the crucifixion. Check it.
There were thousands of witnesses to numerous miracles performed, and many more to when Christ simply calmed the raging sea by wishing it.
Oh, I forgot about all the witnesses there were to document Christ being alive and kicking after His crucifixion. All this has been documented NOT to happen in the Middle Ages, but in 33 AD.
I sense a lack of education in what actually happened 2000 years ago.
It seems the article expresses concern that we will "control" human population yet you state that humanity quadrupled in the 20th century to six billion. Taking that fact into account, what exactly is it that you are worried about?
You say that man has no business "controlling" other's lives, yet you want everyone to "be fruitful and multipy" which certainly is telling people to perform certain actions.
Then you state that the result of not doing that: "man's folly at population control could very well lead to the destruction of the human race?."
Add these obvious contradictions, your final warning sounds strikingly similar to the "population alarmists" you deride and call "doomsayers"!
Just so you know, the column isinuated that we, as humans, have attempted to "control" human populatin about the time our numbers got to 6 billion.
You probably also know that "controlling" peole's lives means "controlling" the death of an aborted baby, it means controlling their sterility, and it means controlling their fertility rate. Wanting people to be fruitul and multiply simply means having more sex. Nothing "controlling" about that.
And you should get the correct meaning from your last statement. "Folly" means erroneous attempts at population control. If those atempts were to occur, then destruction of the human race would also occur.
Thanks for a great reminder that Erlich and other population doomsayers are working from a deceptive and bankrupt ideology.
What population controllers deliberately fail to recognize is that the human person, made in God's image, IS the fundamental unit of wealth. They intentionally disparage the creation and nurturing of new lives for their own selfish reasons, preferring to keep the world all to themselves.
The irony of it all is that the creative application of human intelligence to the raw material of the universe in fact creates all tangible wealth, and that each well-motivated individual human person is capable of producing far more real wealth than they could ever possibly consume. It both surprises and saddens me that otherwise libertarian thinkers have such a hard time getting a handle on this truth.
Furthermore, with respect to your comment about the earth having 10x greater capacity: when God said "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," I believe the "earth" He had in view is in fact the "cosmos" (see St. Paul's commentary in Romans chapter 4.)
While Walt bemoans Christianity "as practiced by the vast majority of Christians" (and I have some sympathy with bemoaning bad practice,) with an authentic view of Christianity based on scripture, there simply are no limits - population doomsayers haven't a leg to stand on!
Over population (humans) will almost certainly occur, and in this present century. Despite all the loss of life happening through the above mentioned means, educated projections of people on the planet in 2100 are from about 9 billion to about 13 billion.
With the lands and the seas, faltering in keeping up with the growing needs, peak oil and malfunctioning governments to look forward to, I can envision a complete diaster looming.
Only some major disaster can stop this growth. Disease, war, natural event, mass destruction weapons might alter those projections. Birth control won't, especially with religious majorities still in control.
I didn't even mention populating other planets, but I definitely had that in mind. The only things stopping us is technology and will. And, of course, time.
Birth control is a major disaster waiting to happen--much sooner than you think. Religious majorities have little to do with it, especially Catholicism and Mormonism.
It's always amusing to see self-proclaimed conservative Christians rail against "telling people what to do" when the same people most likely espouse such things as 1) banning abortion and therefore telling a woman what she can and can't do; 2) banning gay marriage and therefore telling people whom they can and cannot marry; 3) legislating that some "other explanation" besides evolution be taught in the science classroom even though that "other explanation" has no scientific basis. Often times these self-proclaimed "pro-life" people have no problem with the death penalty or invading a country and killing tens of thousands of innocent people. Often times the easiest example of hypocrisy can be found within the ranks of Christian conservatism.
Using some mythical words in a man-made text called the Bible to dismiss any concern about human population is no less absurd. Whether it is actual human population or simply the wasteful, gluttonous lifestyle we've adopted, we are clearly living unsustainably on this earth.
It's even more amusing when folks like you believe that telling a woman that killing her child is NOT a good thing to do. Very probably, the girl or boy that's getting killed would agree with that.
Banning gay marriage is simply going along with the definition of what marriage has always been. There's nothing stopping gay people from getting together at their whim. Of course gays can always try to redefine the term marriage, make it something it's not, and try to gain some of the advantages married people have had for years.
Why do some people continue to insist that God doesn't exist? Wow, won't theybe in for a big surprise upon their death!!!
I guess you forget about all those "pro-life" Christians who don't want the death penalty except in cases where there is no better way to stop a muderous thug from killing again.
The only time I remember innocent people dying was when terrorists put them in places in harm's way, or when they might somehow protect the terrorist unwittingly. In fact, I don't even think this applies if the innocent people were never 'targeted' in the first place.
Hipocrisy can be found within the ranks of Chrstian conservatism if you look hard enough. I guess the rest may be just plain evil if they're not Christian.
It may be just as evil to call words mythical when they're actually facts. And if we keep living our lifestyle of killing premature infants, using abortifacients, IVF, the pill, the morning after pill, you name it, we are clearly living unsustainability on this earth.
" Wanting people to be fruitul and multiply simply means having more sex. Nothing "controlling" about that."
You are not telling people to have sex, people have sex all the time, you are telling people to have children, which is absolutely no concern of yours. By the way, people having sex is also no concern of yours unless it involves you.
'Banning gay marriage is simply going along with the definition of what marriage has always been'.
The state has no place in marriage at all, whether it be gay, straight or involve animal husbandry, who cares? Marriage is only between those who marry and whoever THEY want to include[church, lawyer, etc]. by the way, marriage has been a lot of different things to a lot of cultures.
'I guess you forget about all those "pro-life" Christians who don't want the death penalty except in cases where there is no better way to stop a muderous thug from killing again.'
Is not the state a "murderous thug in that case also"?
"The only time I remember innocent people dying was when terrorists put them in places in harm's way, or when they might somehow protect the terrorist unwittingly."
Sorry, Gene. The concern to have children was God's concern. He's the one who quoted what I have. If people don't have children, the human race vanishes. I guess that really should be everyone's concern.
The state has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. It is not a right, it is a priviledge. You're trying to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, in almost every case, has been between 1 man and 1 woman. You're talking about what has evolved withing the past few years.
If the state prevents some clown from killing over and over, it is doing what it's supposed to do--protect the populace from extermination. You really need to look into correct definitions.
500,000 innoent civilians is totally wrong. What source did you dig up that number from?
Hopefully you will have a firmer grasp of the facts next time!
"The concern to have children was God's concern. He's the one who quoted what I have. If people don't have children, the human race vanishes."
God has never "quoted" anything. Humans quote.
"The state has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. It is not a right, it is a priviledge. You're trying to change the definition of marriage. Marriage, in almost every case, has been between 1 man and 1 woman. You're talking about what has evolved withing the past few years."
The State exists to protect us from harm not to determine who we can cohabitate with. You seem to be defining marriage, or certain kinds of marriage as inflicting harm? although this can be true, that's what marriage counselors are for! Marriage has existed in various forms [usually for obvious reasons heterosexually but not exclusively] in various cultures through the history of mankind, I am not at all talking about the "last few years", in fact you are. I mean really those couples you are afraid of, what are they going to do, defy nature and have kids?
"If the state prevents some clown from killing over and over, it is doing what it's supposed to do--protect the populace from extermination."
Again, the state can protect its citizens from harm by locking the convicted up or killing them. "Thou shalt not Kill", is a human quote attributed to God. It does not say "thou shalt not kill unless it has been determined in a court of law that someone killed someone else".
"500,000 innoent civilians is totally wrong."
Because of the extent of carnage nobody knows the true number. Do you have one? Is one okay or 100,000? or ten? Did George or Saddam kill more? Is one killer okay but the other not?
f the state prevents some clown from killing over and over, it is doing what it's supposed to do--protect the populace from extermination. You really need to look into correct definitions.
Think about what you just said. ""God has never "quoted" anything.""
So Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were simply lying when they documented what God said? In fact, anything printed in the Bible is wrong, made-up, or inaccurate? Do you even believe in God?
I\\\'m not defining marriage at all. That\\\'s the way it was since time began. Sure, some people tought they were getting married to a bunch at the same time, or even to a homosexual, or an animal. But they have redefined the word \\\'marriage\\\'.
The state does NOT define who we can cohabitate with. It defines who we can MARRY, which is a priviledge reserved for those who meet the qualifications.
"Thou Shalt not Kill" is NOT a human quote. It is directly from the "Commandments"(not suggestions). God figured we were smart enough to understand that if a person was going to kill other people, then the only way to stop that may be to kill that person first. Do you think God would want someone else just killing others like your parents, without some way to stop the killing?
I\\\'m glad you admit your quoted number of killings is totally wrong. There were definitely some innocent civilians killed, but it was directly due to terrorists putting them in harms way, or in a location that they thought would protect terrorists. Thousands were killed by the terrorists themselves, just so the terrorists could make their point.
NO deaths are OK. But if it prevents the terrorists from kiling more in the near future, it was necessary.
Your view of things seem very narrow. Perhaps you\\\'d better rethink your attitude.
You are limiting marriage and wanting the state to control it, I am not.
You are saying we must be "qualified" to marry, I am saying it is between two individuals.
You are saying God thinks it is okay to kill as long as we, humans, think it is justified.
You are saying that it is okay to kill civilians because they get in the way of killing terrorists, who by the way, were not in Iraq until we bombed the crap out of it. There seems to be a certain amount of killing that is okay, but you haven't come up with that number yet. Maybe you can find that number in Matthew, Mark, luke or John? Perhaps it is some equation?
Again you say, "thou shalt not kill" is not a "human" quote. You need to understand the definition of a quote, A quote is that which is recalled as being said by another. As I said and you didn't read properly, God doesn't quote. Do you dispute that?
Again, MY view is very narrow? You are using the Commandments, at will, just like Bush did. You interpret them the way you see fit and then, and this is the worst aspect, you try to enforce your narrow beliefs on others.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Never did I use the word 'narrow'.
You cannot control marriage. That is the state's job. It is a priviledge. They control the sex, the age, whether or not youre related to your possible spouse, your IQ, your health(AIDS), and a variety of other things. Saying you control that is presumptuous at best.
Never did I say that at times God thinks it's OK to kill. How do you know when there's civilians in Iraq? There's always civilians around. The terrorists just don't seem to care.
A quote is exactly how you defined it. How someone quotes another--God in this case. You don't even know who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are, do you? You've never read the Bible before, have you? And yes, you said it, not me. Your view is very narrow.
I would be more than happy to answer any questions you have. Just be logical, kind, and inquisitive.
Sorry Kevin but your opinion, whilst you are completely entitled to it, is complete and utter fallacy. You quote the bible as fact, when in fact the bible is an interpretation or life situations brought into peoples lives to better understand the nature of humanity and its relationships. God or not there's no disputing the fact the bible exists, yet claiming it as holy decree would make Jesus laugh(yeah, chances are he did exist and was a great guy, just don't confuse that Jesus with the one in the interpretory text).
2 quotes from your tirade of ignorance:
"Your view of things seem very narrow. Perhaps you'd better rethink your attitude"
"Please stop putting words in my mouth. Never did I use the word 'narrow'."
You can't even be bothered to read what you've already written to avoid making yourself sound like a jackass.
You ask people to be logical, kind and inquisitive. Maybe people would be if you didn't approach them with such brutish ignorance. Although this is precisely the attitude that has defiled the face of christianity for decades. I guess this is what to expect from a person who condones waterboarding.
Jesus gave the power to interpret the Bible correctly to his Apostles. But, you knew that already, right?
You know what would make Jesus laugh? Wow, you're good!
The quotes of me that you used were exactly right. I hadn't used the word "narrow" that you accused me of prior to that post, but I did use "narrow" later because that's exactly how it seemed coming from you.
I really like how you use the words "brutish ignorance", and others. You've probably made a lot of friends in your lifetime. I'm sorry you did't like my attitude.
You've never met me before, but you already know my attitude? Man, you're better than good!
One last thing, Righteous. When did I say I "condone" water boarding? I did say that in this circumstance where the administration knew the Second Wave was coming, and that thousands of Americans would likely be killed, that water boarding those three terrorists was probably the right thing to do to save those Americans.
You clearly have me confused with Gene, it would do you well to consider carefully to whom you are replying, you wouldn't want to come across narrow of mind, or teeming with hypocrisy.
The Jesus of the bible gave no such power to interpret the bible, taken from a literary standpoint there was no interpretation to be made, according to Jesus. Undoubtedly should I not mention that this is mentioned in the bible then you would retort with a comment rebuking my intellect or feasability, as seems to be the pattern with anyone who happens to disagree with your explicit views.
You tell Gene that his views are very narrow, then when he responds to such a comment you rebuke with a denial that you mentioned it. I'm not particularly one to judge someone on age but you sound like a child, your articles have zero credibility if you cannot behave in a responsible manner when presented with criticism.
I'm glad you enjoy perusing a limited selection of my extensive vocabulary but that comment in itself shows that you are missing the point. Me making friends? Sorry I thought we were talking about christianity and overpopulation, could you please be a little more professional and a little less childish if you're going to persist in your nonsensical grammatical endeavours.
If you actually read the bible and understood it you'd understand that peoples perceptions of yourself are based on the evidence you provide. The comments you give in response to honest criticism is derrogatory at best, and since there is an abundance of such commentary then people can make a judgement on your attitude quite well.
Finally I am for saving lives, all lives, but certainly not at any cost.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
