Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

[Greatest I am]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

This question was born from my hearing the story of a man with 17 children of whom 6 were not as normal, so to speak, as the rest. No twins. This family is poor and arguably has no quality of life.

Most Gods favor a reproducing group of adherents.
Without adherents, there relevance would be lost to history.
From Adam on down, we have not let God down, we have reproduced.
Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?

Regards
DL

[Marduk]

every sperm is sacred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
;)

[Greatest I am]

every sperm is sacred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
;)

I like it.

Regards
DL

[sonofgloin]

Most Gods favor a reproducing group of adherents.
Without adherents, there relevance would be lost to history.
From Adam on down, we have not let God down, we have reproduced.
Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?
RegardsDL

We really must thank the Chinese government for implimenting the one child policy which has undoubtedly stabilized China's population growth. We see the reproduction rates in the first world falling and the third world is growing, but the migration of Muslims into the first world has seen a huge spike in the birthrate of those countries, they are outbreeding their hosts at an astounding rate that will have Europe's caucasians as a minority in thirty years. Why I refer to China is that you would need a totalitarian reigme to enforce it.

Understandably the mortality rate for children in the third world drives procreation along with the strength gained by a family unit with more participants, but this transfer to the first world finds most of the siblings surviving and the balance is corrupted. These people are the faithful you allude to, are they culpable...yes, do they have an agenda, perhaps not as individuals but certainly as a group. Christians in the first world who have many children are again looking for strength through numbers, sort of "I will make my own country" if you will.

[Hux]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/249270409_664e6841fa.jpg

[A.A. Alfie]

Just to play devils advocate for the moment. China and India's combined population is some 2 billion. That's roughly one third of the earths population. These two countries are not Christian and their beliefs vary.
I am not certain that religious freedom is even tolerated in China at all - they make up one quarter of the population and their official religion since 1950 is Atheism/Communism.

I would also like you to show me where in the respective texts of the Bible, Qur'an, Ahimsa, Guru Granth, Shashtras, Vedas etc etc discuss procreation, the correct amount of children and that contraception is not allowed (presumably that's what you're suggesting).

It would also seem to me that it is the third world countries that have the greatest number of offspring. This may or may not have anything to do with religion but a lot to do with ensuring a larger family unit - more hands to work the farm say - giving optimum chances of success/survival.

I'm not quite sure which path you are trying to run down here.
Moreover, I am not at all certain that our desire to procreate is because we are obeying 'Gods' law at all - there are too many other factors to consider.

It seems to me that your generalisation is way too broad.
Why don't you just say what you really mean?

[lionking]

My wife and I have brought seven atheists into the world.

[A.A. Alfie]

My wife and I have brought seven atheists into the world.

Too cheap to buy contraceptives?;)

[lionking]

What is this "contraceptive" thing you talk of?

[A.A. Alfie]

What is this "contraceptive" thing you talk of?


Might be a bit late for you though mate.

btw:
I've always thought, more kids in the house, more love in the house.



Contraception - choices explained


There are a number of contraception choices available in Australia. Options include barrier methods (male and female condoms and diaphragms), hormonal methods (pills, vaginal rings, implants and injections), intrauterine devices (IUDs or coils), female and male sterilisation, emergency contraception and ‘natural’ methods.

Choose the method that suits you
Choosing contraception that is right for you requires accurate information as well as negotiation and the ability to be able to communicate freely with your partner on this subject. Issues like effectiveness, safety and freedom from adverse effects need to be weighed up against convenience, cost and issues of trust and control.

The method you choose will depend on a range of factors such as your general health, lifestyle and relationships, your risk of contracting a sexually transmissible infection (STI) and how important it is that you don’t fall pregnant.

Some methods require more ‘motivation’ than others so you need to think about what suits you. For example, you need to remember to take the pill every day, but an implant can last up to three years.

You need to weigh up the pros and cons and think about how these methods fit your current and future needs. You can discuss your options with your doctor, reproductive health nurse or trained staff at Family Planning Victoria.

Protect against STIs
It is important to practice safe sex as well as to protect yourself against pregnancy. Not all contraception methods provide protection against sexually transmissible infections (STIs). The best way to reduce your risk of STIs is to use barrier protection such as male and female condoms and dams (a thin piece of latex placed over the anal or vulval area during oral sex). Condoms can be used for oral, vaginal and anal sex to help prevent the spread of infections.

Physical barrier methods
Barrier methods of contraception stop sperm from getting into the womb (uterus). Options include:

Male condom
Female condom
Diaphragm.
Male and female condoms also decrease the risk of STIs.

Male condom
This is a latex (or polyurethane) sheath that covers the erect penis and prevents semen entering the vagina. This is an effective form of contraception when used properly (95–98% effective). This means using a condom every time you have sex and putting it on before there is any contact between the penis and vagina.
Male condoms are relatively cheap and are available over the counter from supermarkets, pharmacies and sexual health clinics.

Female condom
This is a loose polyurethane sheath with a flexible ring at each end that sits in the vagina and collects semen. It can be inserted many hours before intercourse and is stronger than the male latex condom, but may take some practice with insertion and use. Female condoms are available through mail order from Family Planning Victoria. They may also be available in some retail outlets and sexual health clinics.

Diaphragm
This is a soft, shallow rubber dome that fits in the vagina, covers the cervix and stops sperm from entering the uterus. The diaphragm must stay in place for at least six hours after intercourse and is 85–95 per cent effective if used, fitted and positioned correctly. Diaphragms must be fitted by a suitably trained doctor or nurse. They may decrease the risk of STIs, but should not be relied on for this.

Intrauterine devices (IUD)
An IUD, sometimes known as a coil, is a small plastic device with either added copper or hormones (Mirena). It is inserted into your uterus by a doctor. It can stay in the uterus for five to eight years, depending on the type used, and can easily be removed before that if you would like to fall pregnant or are having problems.

Both types are 99 per cent effective and work by changing the lining and environment of the uterus, effectively killing off sperm. If any sperm survive and fertilise an egg, the egg is unable to stick to the wall of the uterus, so a pregnancy can’t continue.

The Mirena IUD also slowly and continuously releases a small amount of progestogen, and can thicken the mucus made by the cervix to further block sperm. This may also cause minor effects on the hormones controlling your menstrual cycle.

The Mirena is occasionally removed because of hormonal symptoms such as headache, breast tenderness, acne and increased appetite. However it generally gives very light periods. The copper IUD tends to make periods heavier, but doesn’t cause hormonal side effects.

Hormonal contraceptives – pills and vaginal rings
Hormonal contraception for women is available in the form of either a pill (oral contraceptive) or a vaginal ring. Both are available by prescription. Hormonal contraceptives are highly effective (94–99%) if used correctly. However, they may produce side effects and don’t protect against STIs.

Combined pill
This is made up of the synthetic forms of the hormones oestrogen and progesterone. The combined pill prevents ovulation, thickens cervical mucus to make it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and changes the lining of the uterus to make it less suitable for a fertilised egg to stick.

There are many types of combined pills with different dose and hormone combinations. Generally this form of contraception is not recommended for women who are at risk of heart disease, such as smokers aged over 35 years.

Vaginal ring
This contains similar hormones to the combined pill and works in the same way. A ‘one size fits all’ ring is inserted into the vagina and stays there for three weeks. During that time, it slowly releases hormones that pass from the vagina into the bloodstream. It is then removed and a new ring is inserted a week later. It is low dose and saves remembering to take a pill every day. It is as easy to insert as a tampon and, like the combined pill, is 99 per cent effective if used correctly.

Mini pill
This contains only the synthetic form of progesterone. It makes the cervical mucus thicker, which prevents sperm from entering the uterus. This pill must be taken every day at the same time and is not as effective as the combined pill. It is usually suitable for women who either experience side effects from oestrogen or shouldn’t take it for health reasons.

Hormonal contraceptives – implants and injections
Hormonal contraceptives for women are also available as implants and injections. These methods are more effective than other hormonal methods, but may produce side effects and don’t protect against STIs. Male injectable contraceptives are currently being trialled.

Implanon
This is a hormone implant that is inserted under the skin at the inner side of the upper arm. It contains etonogestrel, a progesterone-like hormone that prevents ovulation and hinders sperm from entering the cervix (by changing cervical mucus).
Implanon lasts for three years, is close to 100 per cent effective and is suitable for most women who can’t tolerate synthetic oestrogens. The device is inserted by a doctor under local anaesthetic.

DPMA injections (Depo-Provera/Depo-Ralovera)
These are long-acting (12 to 14 weeks) injectable contraceptives containing the hormone progestogen. They prevent ovulation, block sperm by thickening the mucus made by the cervix and cause changes in the lining of the uterus so it is unsuitable for a fertilised egg to stick. DPMA injections are highly effective and provide a very private method of contraception.

Sterilisation
Sterilisation is a permanent surgical procedure that requires referral to a specialist. Female and male sterilisation are highly effective methods of contraception but do not provide protection against STIs.

Female sterilisation
This procedure blocks the fallopian tubes, preventing an egg from passing down the tube and being fertilised. The two common surgical methods used are:
Tubal ligation (having your tubes tied)– performed under general anaesthetic.
Essure micro-inserts – doesn’t require a general anaesthetic.
Vasectomy (male sterilisation)
This involves blocking sperm by cutting the tubes they pass through from the testes to the penis.

Emergency contraception
Sometimes it is necessary to prevent pregnancy after sex rather than before: for example, when a pill is forgotten or a condom breaks, or in the case of rape. Emergency contraception is a hormonal method of contraception that prevents or delays ovulation in that cycle. It may also stop a fertilised egg from sticking to the wall of the uterus. It is 85 per cent effective. Emergency contraception was previously known as the ‘morning after’ pill.

There are different types of emergency pills available. The most commonly used form – two tablets of progestogen hormone – can be prescribed by a doctor or is available over the counter at most pharmacies. These pills should be taken as soon as possible after sex and must be started within 120 hours of unprotected sex.

Natural methods
Natural family planning is based on an understanding of the menstrual cycle. Monitoring cervical mucus changes, body temperature changes and rhythm or cycle calculations are different methods used to help determine when a woman is most likely to be fertile each month.

The effectiveness of natural family planning varies in relation to whether one or a combination of methods is used. Confidence, correct use and effectiveness improve the longer the method is used. Natural family planning methods do not protect against STIs.

Where to get help
Your doctor
Family Planning Victoria Tel. 1800 013 952 or (03) 9257 0100
The Action Centre (for young people under 25) Tel. (03) 9654 4766 or 1800 013 952
Melbourne Sexual Health Centre Tel. (03) 9341 6200 or 1800 032 017 or TTY (for the hearing impaired) (03) 9347 8619
RWH Women’s Health Information Centre Tel. (03) 9344 2007
Community health centre
Reproductive specialist
Pharmacist
Things to remember
Discuss your options with your doctor, reproductive health nurse or reproductive health service.
Different methods may suit you at different times in your life.
Contraceptives available include physical barriers and devices, hormonal methods, sterilisation, emergency and ‘natural’ methods.
Condoms provide the best available protection against sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
You might also be interested in:
Contraception - condoms for men.
Contraception - condoms for women.
Contraception - diaphragms and cervical caps.
Contraception - emergency contraception.
Contraception - female sterilisation.
Contraception - implants and injections.
Contraception - injections for men.
Contraception - intrauterine devices.
Contraception - the Billings method.
Contraception - the pill.
Contraception - vasectomy.
Disability and sexual issues.
Sex - are you ready.
Sex education - talking to teenagers.
Sexually transmissible infections - overview.
Sexually transmissible infections - signs and symptoms.
Teenagers - sexual behaviour.
Teenagers - sexual knowledge.

[Ove]

Just to play devils advocate for the moment. China and India's combined population is some 2 billion. That's roughly one third of the earths population. These two countries are not Christian and their beliefs vary.
I am not certain that religious freedom is even tolerated in China at all - they make up one quarter of the population and their official religion since 1950 is Atheism/Communism.

I would also like you to show me where in the respective texts of the Bible, Qur'an, Ahimsa, Guru Granth, Shashtras, Vedas etc etc discuss procreation, the correct amount of children and that contraception is not allowed (presumably that's what you're suggesting).



The Chinese policy was adopted because old chinese habits and religions bade them to multiply AND because boys are more "worth" than girls due to some obscure old traditions. That made Chinese go on and on reproducing untill the desired boy was born (in some cases they killed the baby girls)

I don't know what bible quote the old stupid German currently resinding in the Vatican is using but he IS vaging war against contraception and birth control. According to him it is against Gods will to intervene with reproduction. He and his "merry men" is actively fighting the "Use condoms against HIV" campaign and has made some horrible claims about condoms actually increasing the risk of catching the disease.

[A.A. Alfie]

The Chinese policy was adopted because old chinese habits and religions bade them to multiply AND because boys are more "worth" than girls due to some obscure old traditions. That made Chinese go on and on reproducing untill the desired boy was born (in some cases they killed the baby girls)

I don't know what bible quote the old stupid German currently resinding in the Vatican is using but he IS vaging war against contraception and birth control. According to him it is against Gods will to intervene with reproduction. He and his "merry men" is actively fighting the "Use condoms against HIV" campaign and has made some horrible claims about condoms actually increasing the risk of catching the disease.



China - that's not my understanding of it at all. There were numerous forms of religion leading up the the revolution of 1950. Prior to that (and even in more recent times) the population of China was predominantly provincial and living in rural farming communities (the migration to the cities is a relatively new concept in China). That necessitated the 'desire' for more children - not religion and certainly not Christianity.

FYI. The population of China in 1950 was about 550 million.
It increased to 1b in about 1980
One child policy was introduced in 1979,
population is now 1.4b approx
And all this whilst religious freedom is outlawed and the official religion is atheism/communism.
How do you reconcile religion with the population explosion there?

Secondly, I will concede without argument that the Catholic church is 'against' contraception, but this is not what I asked. What I want to know is where in all the 'holy scriptures' of each religion does it outline what the requirements and goals are pertaining to procreation and population?

It seems to me that an assertion is being made without any reference to facts, data, citations: All we have is a very loose assertion lacking any credible support.

[Aepervius]

The Chinese policy was adopted because old chinese habits and religions bade them to multiply AND because boys are more "worth" than girls due to some obscure old traditions. That made Chinese go on and on reproducing untill the desired boy was born (in some cases they killed the baby girls)

I don't know what bible quote the old stupid German currently resinding in the Vatican is using but he IS vaging war against contraception and birth control. According to him it is against Gods will to intervene with reproduction. He and his "merry men" is actively fighting the "Use condoms against HIV" campaign and has made some horrible claims about condoms actually increasing the risk of catching the disease.

As somebody put in literature(*) : always be wary of advice from men with pointed colorful hat which look like crayon...

(*) discworld ;)

[slingblade]

You know, of course, who is really to blame for the problems of humanity...?

Humanity.


It's insidious. Won't you help? Please, do all you can to stop humanity today.

[dio]

First let me state that I have nothing against a couple deciding -after careful consideration of several factors (housing, finances, health, etc)- to have child n+1.

This being said, and referring to situations like the one described in the OP, I don't think that religion is the main culprit, but lack of education (which coincidentally is fertile ground for superstitious beliefs).

@ Alfie:

Genesis 1:28
"Be fruitful and multiply" or "Be fruitful and increase in number".
Pretty clear to me. For a couple (2 people) to "increase in number", they must leave at least 3 offspring. Now this is the bare minimum of kids that must survive the parents and this is a direct order from God on the first page of the bible. (You're gonna say that God was talking to Adam & Eve, but I'm sure A&E couldn't possibly "replenish the
earth" by themselves, so the order extends to all descendants).


I somehow doubt there was anything new for lionking in your "sexual education" post.

[Redtail]

The Chinese policy was adopted because old chinese habits and religions bade them to multiply AND because boys are more "worth" than girls due to some obscure old traditions. That made Chinese go on and on reproducing untill the desired boy was born (in some cases they killed the baby girls)

I don't know what bible quote the old stupid German currently resinding in the Vatican is using but he IS vaging war against contraception and birth control. According to him it is against Gods will to intervene with reproduction. He and his "merry men" is actively fighting the "Use condoms against HIV" campaign and has made some horrible claims about condoms actually increasing the risk of catching the disease.

[15 year old]Heh heh.[/15 year old]

[AntiTelharsic]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

Some of them are certainly trying to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull).

[sonofgloin]

Just to play devils advocate for the moment. China and India's combined population is some 2 billion. That's roughly one third of the earths population. These two countries are not Christian and their beliefs vary.
It seems to me that your generalisation is way too broad.
Why don't you just say what you really mean?


"Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Are believers culpable for overpopulation?"

Sorry I mean yes. What I was endeavoring to convey is that the third world mindset of propogation moves to the first world with migration and the common factor is faith, the larger congregation the more secure the tenure.

[A.A. Alfie]

"Originally Posted by Greatest I am
Are believers culpable for overpopulation?"

Sorry I mean yes. What I was endeavoring to convey is that the third world mindset of propogation moves to the first world with migration and the common factor is faith, the larger congregation the more secure the tenure.

Am I getting you straight here:

The migrants from the third world to the first world, are bringing their religious practices and hence their religious desire to procreate in gods name? As a result, the whole world is/has become overpopulated?

[Hux]

Muslims, in western European countries, are said to have the highest of birth rates. I have no idea if they are procreating because of religious desire but it does seem to be producing an awful lot of Muslims.

[A.A. Alfie]

Muslims, in western European countries, are said to have the highest of birth rates. I have no idea if they are procreating because of religious desire but it does seem to be producing an awful lot of Muslims.



And yet the % of the population of Europe in world terms has fallen from
21.7% in 1950, to 10.9% in 2008.
In numerical terms, that is 547million in 1950 increased to 732million in 2008 and has peaked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population


Doesn't quite add up.

Can you show me some data please?

[Hux]

Population may be decreasing but Muslims, according to EEU figures have the highest birth rate. These are not incompatible. France in particular shows this trend.

I got the information from the BBC 24 News channel but I'm sure you could find data if you can be arsed to; unlike me.

[Ove]

China - that's not my understanding of it at all. There were numerous forms of religion leading up the the revolution of 1950. Prior to that (and even in more recent times) the population of China was predominantly provincial and living in rural farming communities (the migration to the cities is a relatively new concept in China). That necessitated the 'desire' for more children - not religion and certainly not Christianity.

FYI. The population of China in 1950 was about 550 million.
It increased to 1b in about 1980
One child policy was introduced in 1979,
population is now 1.4b approx
And all this whilst religious freedom is outlawed and the official religion is atheism/communism.
How do you reconcile religion with the population explosion there?

I said religion and old Chinese habits


Secondly, I will concede without argument that the Catholic church is 'against' contraception, but this is not what I asked. What I want to know is where in all the 'holy scriptures' of each religion does it outline what the requirements and goals are pertaining to procreation and population?

It seems to me that an assertion is being made without any reference to facts, data, citations: All we have is a very loose assertion lacking any credible support.

I never said that it was outlined in the holy scriptures but it is certainly outlined in the interpetations of those scripts made by those who claim to be experts in that namely the Pope and his associates. If you say that his preacing against family planning has nothing to do with religion then i don't understand a thing but feel free to enlighten me. :)

[Hux]

Is it not a fundamental basis of the catholic church that they bother less with scriptural authority and more with the authority of Herr ratswinger? The poor dears cant wear rubber on their todgers because Benny the Poop says so. I doubt condoms were created in the days when the goat shaggers were writing the scriptures.

[A.A. Alfie]

I never said that it was outlined in the holy scriptures but it is certainly outlined in the interpetations of those scripts made by those who claim to be experts in that namely the Pope and his associates. If you say that his preacing against family planning has nothing to do with religion then i don't understand a thing but feel free to enlighten me. :)

I'm referring to the OP in which all religions whether East or West are the cause of overpopulation. I have asked for texts on the teachings of each religion and we have received just one so far.

It is interesting that you target the catholics - who represent just 1.1billion people - roughly one sixth of earths population. Not all these are practicing either. Of these roughly 65% are practicing, some 65% of these are pro life so we are looking at a world catholic population today of less than 500m. Are you suggesting they are responsible?

Clearly you didn't understand my post whe I said: "I will concede without argument that the Catholic church is 'against' contraception..".
But the onus is on you to show where and how they have contributed if the assertion is that religion is responsible for overpopulation.


I have pointed out that China has increased the population nearly 1billion alone in the last 60 years without religion, in an effort to show the OP's assertion to be flawed.

Additionally you incorrectly assert that female children were killed because of some "old Chinese habits and religion". Utter nonsense. The reality is that it has been since 1979 when the one child policy was implemented that this horrendous practice began.
Again, please show some citations if you have any to the contrary.

By the way - I'm not catholic, don't go to church and am not affiliated with any religion. But if you people want to sling mud, please ensure you have the ammo.

In short, the arguments inferred in the OP are fundamentally flawed and your support is outrageously lacking in accuracy and/or data.

[Dancing David]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

This question was born from my hearing the story of a man with 17 children of whom 6 were not as normal, so to speak, as the rest. No twins. This family is poor and arguably has no quality of life.

Most Gods favor a reproducing group of adherents.
Without adherents, there relevance would be lost to history.
From Adam on down, we have not let God down, we have reproduced.
Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?

Regards
DL

Nope.

[Dancing David]

Is it not a fundamental basis of the catholic church that they bother less with scriptural authority and more with the authority of Herr ratswinger? The poor dears cant wear rubber on their todgers because Benny the Poop says so. I doubt condoms were created in the days when the goat shaggers were writing the scriptures.

Nope. They practiced the same thing they do in modern times if they wished to avoid pregnancy, which given infant mortality was not likely. And there may have been some methods using herb as well.

[Dancing David]

Population may be decreasing but Muslims, according to EEU figures have the highest birth rate. These are not incompatible. France in particular shows this trend.

I got the information from the BBC 24 News channel but I'm sure you could find data if you can be arsed to; unlike me.


Uh, where is the demographic control for socio economic status, parental traditions and the like. It is very common for certain populations to have higher numbers of children regardless of religion.

[GreNME]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

No, lots of people having lots of unprotected sex is culpable for the population.

[shadron]

I'm referring to the OP in which all religions whether East or West are the cause of overpopulation. I have asked for texts on the teachings of each religion and we have received just one so far.

It is interesting that you target the catholics - who represent just 1.1billion people - roughly one sixth of earths population. Not all these are practicing either. Of these roughly 65% are practicing, some 65% of these are pro life so we are looking at a world catholic population today of less than 500m. Are you suggesting they are responsible?

Clearly you didn't understand my post whe I said: "I will concede without argument that the Catholic church is 'against' contraception..".
But the onus is on you to show where and how they have contributed if the assertion is that religion is responsible for overpopulation.

Actually, the OP asks:

"Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?"

No question about texts at all.

Now, I happen to know something about Catholicism. They treat tradition, as voiced in writings by learned "doctors" of the church as at least equal in weight to scripture, hence the relative de-emphasis on the Bible. An eminent practice for a conservative philosophy. Doctors here means wise people whose writings are accepted by the body and the governance of the church; somewhat inbred, but in use for 2000 years.

The settled teaching of the RC is definitely anti-abortion and anti-birth control. They will grudgingly allow for a rhythm method, but that's the limit. Obviously, this is egregiously ignored in many areas, notably Europe and the US, a problem that the American Council of Bishops often debates and then ignores. Large families within catholic communities were very much encouraged and thought praiseworthy up until about the 60s; since then it is much less prominent, so it would appear that general cultural pressure is as important as interior community pressure.

Personally, I think that old religious attitudes have encouraged large families but that it is less an incentive than need for free labor in primitive farming and industrial societies, and a general lack of birth control techniques. In modern societies where the opposites are true, the birth rate has fallen precipitously.

[Hux]

Uh, where is the demographic control for socio economic status, parental traditions and the like. It is very common for certain populations to have higher numbers of children regardless of religion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm

Here is just one I noted. Yes I see it is 2005 but I cannot see any change in more recent studies. Once again, I am not claiming religion is responsible for overpopulation. It seems to be plain that Muslims represent the highest growing birth rate in Europe.

Catholics will always be blamed for overpopulation. They are simply not allowed contraceptive measures - which, apart from Ireland, they mostly ignore and consequently are hypocrites and cherry pickers.

[sonofgloin]

I went looking for fertility numbers and found this, if it is to believed the world population is decreasing.....what!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e

[A.A. Alfie]

Actually, the OP asks:

"Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?"

No question about texts at all.

You're right of course. I simply asked for the texts as some sort of evidence towards what the OP was asserting about all religions


Now, I happen to know something about Catholicism. They treat tradition, as voiced in writings by learned "doctors" of the church as at least equal in weight to scripture, hence the relative de-emphasis on the Bible. An eminent practice for a conservative philosophy. Doctors here means wise people whose writings are accepted by the body and the governance of the church; somewhat inbred, but in use for 2000 years.

The settled teaching of the RC is definitely anti-abortion and anti-birth control. They will grudgingly allow for a rhythm method, but that's the limit. Obviously, this is egregiously ignored in many areas, notably Europe and the US, a problem that the American Council of Bishops often debates and then ignores. Large families within catholic communities were very much encouraged and thought praiseworthy up until about the 60s; since then it is much less prominent, so it would appear that general cultural pressure is as important as interior community pressure.

Personally, I think that old religious attitudes have encouraged large families but that it is less an incentive than need for free labor in primitive farming and industrial societies, and a general lack of birth control techniques. In modern societies where the opposites are true, the birth rate has fallen precipitously.

My bolding

This is also what I believe to be true hence my question about what the OP is really trying to say? And my statement:

"It seems to me that an assertion is being made without any reference to facts, data, citations: All we have is a very loose assertion lacking any credible support."

[sphenisc]

I think the one major contributing factor is the reduction in infant mortality - making paedatric medicine culpable.

[A.A. Alfie]

I think the one major contributing factor is the reduction in infant mortality - making paedatric medicine culpable.

That might be true in the first world, however the average number of children per family is < three.
The third world is where most of the population growth occurs and infant mortality remains high.
In most western societies the infant mortality rate is less than 10 per 1,000. In many third world countries it is more than 50 per 1k and over 100 in many African nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

[Hux]

It was always assumed in the third world, that large families were assets, taking into mind, infant and maternal morbidity and that surviving kids would look after you in your old age. ( I have noted, whilst in medicine, that third world immigrants rarely placed their elderly in homes. I found this commendable and always thought it part of the pattern of their lives)

[The Drain]

I think there is a correlation between average family size and standard of living. As a society grows wealthier, and its proportion of middle-class increases, so its birth-rate begins to fall. (This observation is based on what I have seen in Ireland and Africa over the last few decades).

If overpopulation is seen as a problem, the humane solution lies in improving people's lot in life.

To answer the OP; no, believers are not culpable for overpopulation - poverty is.

Having said that, poverty is often synonymous with a lack of education which itself is synonymous with credulousness and irrational beliefs.

[A.A. Alfie]

I think there is a correlation between average family size and standard of living. As a society grows wealthier, and its proportion of middle-class increases, so its birth-rate begins to fall. (This observation is based on what I have seen in Ireland and Africa over the last few decades).

If overpopulation is seen as a problem, the humane solution lies in improving people's lot in life.

To answer the OP; no, believers are not culpable for overpopulation - poverty is.

Having said that, poverty is often synonymous with a lack of education which itself is synonymous with credulousness and irrational beliefs.




Seconded.

[Ove]

I'm referring to the OP in which all religions whether East or West are the cause of overpopulation. I have asked for texts on the teachings of each religion and we have received just one so far.

It is interesting that you target the catholics - who represent just 1.1billion people - roughly one sixth of earths population. Not all these are practicing either. Of these roughly 65% are practicing, some 65% of these are pro life so we are looking at a world catholic population today of less than 500m. Are you suggesting they are responsible?

Clearly you didn't understand my post whe I said: "I will concede without argument that the Catholic church is 'against' contraception..".
But the onus is on you to show where and how they have contributed if the assertion is that religion is responsible for overpopulation.


I have pointed out that China has increased the population nearly 1billion alone in the last 60 years without religion, in an effort to show the OP's assertion to be flawed.

Additionally you incorrectly assert that female children were killed because of some "old Chinese habits and religion". Utter nonsense. The reality is that it has been since 1979 when the one child policy was implemented that this horrendous practice began.
Again, please show some citations if you have any to the contrary.

By the way - I'm not catholic, don't go to church and am not affiliated with any religion. But if you people want to sling mud, please ensure you have the ammo.

In short, the arguments inferred in the OP are fundamentally flawed and your support is outrageously lacking in accuracy and/or data.

Well i AM Danish and English IS my second language and you have a tendency to use a very "learned" language so i probably don't understand all that you write but i WILL sling mud against the Catolic Church and i do. They are probably not the worst offenders in regards to overpopulation but their behaviour in Africa is simply WRONG. When you tell your priests to go around among un-educated people an teach them that Contraception is bad and that Condomes do NOT protect against HIV/AIDS then my mudslinging seems fully justifyed and the church does just that.

[Darth Rotor]

The poor dears cant wear rubber on their todgers because Benny the Poop says so.
You presume a great deal more influence by the Pope than he actually wields.

DR

[Greatest I am]

We really must thank the Chinese government for implimenting the one child policy which has undoubtedly stabilized China's population growth. We see the reproduction rates in the first world falling and the third world is growing, but the migration of Muslims into the first world has seen a huge spike in the birthrate of those countries, they are outbreeding their hosts at an astounding rate that will have Europe's caucasians as a minority in thirty years. Why I refer to China is that you would need a totalitarian reigme to enforce it.

Understandably the mortality rate for children in the third world drives procreation along with the strength gained by a family unit with more participants, but this transfer to the first world finds most of the siblings surviving and the balance is corrupted. These people are the faithful you allude to, are they culpable...yes, do they have an agenda, perhaps not as individuals but certainly as a group. Christians in the first world who have many children are again looking for strength through numbers, sort of "I will make my own country" if you will.

China may very well be our best example of control. I do not know if only a totalitarian is required for it though.

If the west were starving, action would soon follow.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Just to play devils advocate for the moment. China and India's combined population is some 2 billion. That's roughly one third of the earths population. These two countries are not Christian and their beliefs vary.
I am not certain that religious freedom is even tolerated in China at all - they make up one quarter of the population and their official religion since 1950 is Atheism/Communism.

I would also like you to show me where in the respective texts of the Bible, Qur'an, Ahimsa, Guru Granth, Shashtras, Vedas etc etc discuss procreation, the correct amount of children and that contraception is not allowed (presumably that's what you're suggesting).

It would also seem to me that it is the third world countries that have the greatest number of offspring. This may or may not have anything to do with religion but a lot to do with ensuring a larger family unit - more hands to work the farm say - giving optimum chances of success/survival.

I'm not quite sure which path you are trying to run down here.
Moreover, I am not at all certain that our desire to procreate is because we are obeying 'Gods' law at all - there are too many other factors to consider.

It seems to me that your generalisation is way too broad.
Why don't you just say what you really mean?

I was simply asking a question but if religions are the cause then they must become part of the solution. They have yet to do so.

Regards
DL

[The Drain]

I was simply asking a question but if religions are the cause then they must become part of the solution. They have yet to do so.

Regards
DL


Hi DL.
Please see my post (#37 on page 1).

Religions are not the cause of overpopulation. There is a direct correlation between overpopulation and poverty. Improve the standard of living and the birth-rate will come down.

A totalitarian solution, like the Chinese one-child policy, is inhumane and full of other problems like gender imbalance and human misery.

The West has been starving before, in recent times. Continental Europe in 1944/45 was a horrid place to be. But the "action" that followed was a massive improvement in agriculture, (through what is now the European Union), not any sort of imposed birth-rate restriction.

Regards,
The Drain

[Greatest I am]

No, lots of people having lots of unprotected sex is culpable for the population.

So basically, the poor, the un-educated and the religious are responsible?

If so, are the haves too slow to help out with contraceptives and education.

I ask while knowing that education levels, I believe, are dropping in the west.

Regards
DL

[Darth Rotor]

Overcopulation is the root cause of overpopulation.







(This is a reference to a forty year old joke in MAD magazine: A small poster showed the following words "The birth control pill is responsible for the copulation explosion")

[Greatest I am]

I think there is a correlation between average family size and standard of living. As a society grows wealthier, and its proportion of middle-class increases, so its birth-rate begins to fall. (This observation is based on what I have seen in Ireland and Africa over the last few decades).

If overpopulation is seen as a problem, the humane solution lies in improving people's lot in life.

To answer the OP; no, believers are not culpable for overpopulation - poverty is.

Having said that, poverty is often synonymous with a lack of education which itself is synonymous with credulousness and irrational beliefs.

Irrational beliefs promoted by religions?

Regards
DL

[The Drain]

Interestingly, the Catholic Church in Ireland has been 'credited' with acting to keep the Irish birth-rate down post the Great Famine. You might think that surely they're the guys who banned contraceptives - and that is true - but they also encouraged huge numbers of young men and young women to remain celibate for life. There are convents all over Ireland that used to be full of women destined never to have children.

I would love to see a statistical study of that argument.

We must also be just about the only country in the world whose population is less than it was in 1841. The census then showed a pop of 8 million; today it stands at around 6 million (all-Ireland). Of course that's not due to convents, condoms & carrots, (or even priests, prophylactics & potatoes), but emigration.

[Greatest I am]

Hi DL.
Please see my post (#37 on page 1).

Religions are not the cause of overpopulation. There is a direct correlation between overpopulation and poverty. Improve the standard of living and the birth-rate will come down.

A totalitarian solution, like the Chinese one-child policy, is inhumane and full of other problems like gender imbalance and human misery.

The West has been starving before, in recent times. Continental Europe in 1944/45 was a horrid place to be. But the "action" that followed was a massive improvement in agriculture, (through what is now the European Union), not any sort of imposed birth-rate restriction.

Regards,
The Drain

Or reduce the birth rate and then the population will have the means to educate itself.

IE. The father in the OP could have stopped at 10 children and taken the profits of not having to care for the next 7 and apply it to educating the 10.
He did not and is perpetuation poverty for his progeny.

Regards
DL

[The Drain]

Irrational beliefs promoted by religions?

Regards
DL


That may be true. But it is irrelevant to the issue of overpopulation.

[The Drain]

Or reduce the birth rate and then the population will have the means to educate itself.

IE. The father in the OP could have stopped at 10 children and taken the profits of not having to care for the next 7 and apply it to educating the 10.
He did not and is perpetuation poverty for his progeny.

Regards
DL


I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

If that man's children receive a proper education and are given the opportunity of having a better life than their parents had, the result will be that each of those children will have fewer offspring when they grow up.

So what to do?

We in the West need to ensure that families like those in your OP do get access to education (and nutrition, fair trade rules, etc) - they will then be in a position to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

We can do it.

[Hux]

You presume a great deal more influence by the Pope than he actually wields.

DR

It matters more what Catholics think of the Pope than I do. I never met one yet that disagreed with Catholic dogma (at least publicly)

[A.A. Alfie]

Well i AM Danish and English IS my second language and you have a tendency to use a very "learned" language so i probably don't understand all that you write but i WILL sling mud against the Catolic Church and i do. They are probably not the worst offenders in regards to overpopulation but their behaviour in Africa is simply WRONG. When you tell your priests to go around among un-educated people an teach them that Contraception is bad and that Condomes do NOT protect against HIV/AIDS then my mudslinging seems fully justifyed and the church does just that.

Perhaps but that's not in line with the OP.

[sphenisc]

That might be true in the first world, however the average number of children per family is < three.
The third world is where most of the population growth occurs and infant mortality remains high.
In most western societies the infant mortality rate is less than 10 per 1,000. In many third world countries it is more than 50 per 1k and over 100 in many African nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

But in 1900 the IMR was over 100 per 1K pretty well everywhere. The worst IMR today, Sierra Leone, would have been typical of European countries in 1900. From here (http://charleskenny.blogs.com/weblog/files/histinf.pdf).

You might be interested in Hans Rosling's talk here (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen .html) showing changes in child survival over the last 40 years.

[A.A. Alfie]

I was simply asking a question but if religions are the cause then they must become part of the solution. They have yet to do so.

Regards
DL

The goal posts have been moved?
Your OP seems quite clear in that they are responsible for the overpopulation, not for the solution (not that I necessarily disagree with you on the 'solution').

[A.A. Alfie]

So basically, the poor, the un-educated and the religious are responsible?

If so, are the haves too slow to help out with contraceptives and education.

I ask while knowing that education levels, I believe, are dropping in the west.

Regards
DL

You keep banging on about religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you just mean the Catholic Church don't you?
Why dont you just say what you mean instead of the ring-a-ring-a-rosy around your real issue.

Now, assuming this, we have put up all sorts of statistics to show that 'religion' is not responsible and that it is effectively one of socioeconomics. Still you play the religious card. Show us where you are getting your ideas. Some back up supports, statistics whatever.

You continue putting up unsupported assertions/opinions.

Why do you believe that education levels are dropping?
Why do you believe that the "haves" are too slow helping?
How have any stats produced so far suggestive that "religion" is responsible?

[A.A. Alfie]

IE. The father in the OP could have stopped at 10 children and taken the profits of not having to care for the next 7 and apply it to educating the 10.
He did not and is perpetuation poverty for his progeny.

Regards
DL


How do we know this man and his family are religious anyway. It was never stated in the OP and you haven't provided any story source either.

More assumptions and unsupported opinions?

[A.A. Alfie]

I would love to see a statistical study of that argument.

I'd love to see him provide just one statistical argument supporting any of the biogotry he's spouting.

[Greatest I am]

That may be true. But it is irrelevant to the issue of overpopulation.

Is it?

Though shalt not use birth control, reduces population.
LOL.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

If that man's children receive a proper education and are given the opportunity of having a better life than their parents had, the result will be that each of those children will have fewer offspring when they grow up.

So what to do?

We in the West need to ensure that families like those in your OP do get access to education (and nutrition, fair trade rules, etc) - they will then be in a position to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

We can do it.

We can do much.
Yet we do not. We do not have the political will.
It can then be said that we cannot do it. We have yet to show just what we can do.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You keep banging on about religion. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you just mean the Catholic Church don't you?
Why dont you just say what you mean instead of the ring-a-ring-a-rosy around your real issue.

Now, assuming this, we have put up all sorts of statistics to show that 'religion' is not responsible and that it is effectively one of socioeconomics. Still you play the religious card. Show us where you are getting your ideas. Some back up supports, statistics whatever.

You continue putting up unsupported assertions/opinions.

Why do you believe that education levels are dropping?
Why do you believe that the "haves" are too slow helping?
How have any stats produced so far suggestive that "religion" is responsible?

It happens that the man in the OP was not a Christian.

I speak here of all religions that do not promote the use of birth control.

You might note how others are quick to supply the type of evidence you seem to need. I am a generalist and admit it.

Regards
DL

[The Drain]

Is it?

Though shalt not use birth control, reduces population.
LOL.

Regards
DL

I presume from your quote that you have an issue with the Roman Catholic Church. Is that correct?

I'm basing that presumption on the fact that mainstream Protestant churches have never been overly worried about contraceptives, nor - as far as I am aware from meeting people from other religions - do the mainstream Moslems, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus. (I'm open to correction on this point from anyone more knowledgeable).

I am no apologist for religions in general or the RC church in particular.

But you're not addressing any of the points that I have raised, demonstrating that poverty - not religion - is the cause of overpopulation.

I repeat: Raise a society's overall standard of living and the birth-rate will fall. It's really that simple.

[The Drain]

We can do much.
Yet we do not. We do not have the political will.
It can then be said that we cannot do it. We have yet to show just what we can do.

Regards
DL


Untrue. We are doing a lot. I personally am involved in this work. It is the reason I travel to Africa, the Carribbean (Haiti), Central America and South Asia.

I would be interested to know where you are living and where you have travelled, because of your phrase "We do not have the political will".

Who's "we"?

[Greatest I am]

How do we know this man and his family are religious anyway. It was never stated in the OP and you haven't provided any story source either.

More assumptions and unsupported opinions?

Not so. The story showed the family to be religious.

Believe it or not. I gain nothing with lies.

I did try to find the story at Discovery but could not locate it.
It was a story of a Turkish family that was afflicted by a condition that made 6 of their 17 children walk on fours.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I presume from your quote that you have an issue with the Roman Catholic Church. Is that correct?

I'm basing that presumption on the fact that mainstream Protestant churches have never been overly worried about contraceptives, nor - as far as I am aware from meeting people from other religions - do the mainstream Moslems, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus. (I'm open to correction on this point from anyone more knowledgeable).

I am no apologist for religions in general or the RC church in particular.

But you're not addressing any of the points that I have raised, demonstrating that poverty - not religion - is the cause of overpopulation.

I repeat: Raise a society's overall standard of living and the birth-rate will fall. It's really that simple.

I agree but think that these same nations are kept poor because they use resources on those that are destined to die by starvation.

Rather a catch 22.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Untrue. We are doing a lot. I personally am involved in this work. It is the reason I travel to Africa, the Carribbean (Haiti), Central America and South Asia.

I would be interested to know where you are living and where you have travelled, because of your phrase "We do not have the political will".

Who's "we"?

We the world.
This is a problem that the whole world must face. It is a world political will that is required.

Regards
DL

[A.A. Alfie]

It happens that the man in the OP was not a Christian.

I speak here of all religions that do not promote the use of birth control.

You might note how others are quick to supply the type of evidence you seem to need. I am a generalist and admit it.

Regards
DL

In other words your assertions are uneducated, the example is irrelevant, and your conclusions are unadulterated claptrap.

Show me the 'evidence' that others have supposedly posted. I have seen nothing that gives credibility to your bigotry, just the opposite.

Show me too how "all religions" do not promote the use of birth control. Any evidence, just something, even a little- I really want you to do some homework on this.
The catholic/vatican stand is agreed as a 'no contest', however we have provided evidence showing just why they are not responsible.
So something else, please!

[A.A. Alfie]

It happens that the man in the OP was not a Christian.DL

Not so. The story showed the family to be religious.

Believe it or not. I gain nothing with lies.

I did try to find the story at Discovery but could not locate it.
It was a story of a Turkish family that was afflicted by a condition that made 6 of their 17 children walk on fours.

So let's see here:
They're not Christian,
You don't know if they're religious at all,
btw. Turkey is a secular nation (although based on moderate Islamic religious foundations).
"The story showed..." means nothing

It seems to me that poverty, a lack of medical treatments, poor education etc might be the problem rather than religion.

You "gain nothing with lies". Ok, I might accept that, but you have: opened with false dichotomies; deliberately mislead us; used misinformation; and false or unstubstantiated claims.

You say you are a generaliser. That suggests either laziness, bigotry or both.

So I repeat your assertions are being made without any reference to facts, data, citations: All we have is your uninformed and uneducated opinions lacking any credible support.

[A.A. Alfie]

I agree but think that these same nations are kept poor because they use resources on those that are destined to die by starvation.

Rather a catch 22.

Regards
DL

What!?
So now religion isn't responsible but the first/western world?

I wish you'd make up your mind.

Tell me, what actually is your agenda here?
That you just want to bash all religion?
Bashing the Catholic Church?
Bashing the western world?
Promotion of your communist/socialist or other politics?
You just want to practice baseless arguments to allow you to join some truther movement?
Something else?

Who and/or what are we actually debating here?

[The Drain]

I agree but think that these same nations are kept poor because they use resources on those that are destined to die by starvation.

Rather a catch 22.

Regards
DL


I'm sorry, GIA, but I don't understand what you're on about. Your OP raised an interesting question, so I answered it as clearly and as best I could.

But now your language - as illustrated in your quote above - and your logic too, are no longer making sense.

As you are not coming up with any reasoned arguments to support your case - or even stating clearly what your case is - this debate, as far as I am concerned, is finished.

[psychictv]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

No, because overpopulation doesn't exist. And your story about the family with 17 kids is not statistically significant.

[Nosi]

No, because overpopulation doesn't exist. And your story about the family with 17 kids is not statistically significant.

You are saying that six going on seven billion human beings is not too many human beings? Please clarify.

[Greatest I am]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate)

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk)

Regards
DL

[Hux]

I don't think believers are necessarily more responsible for population growth than non believers. However those that do not or cannot use contraception as a result of their religious dogma, are bound to produce more pregnancies than those who practice contraception. I guess that's all you could claim.

[Greatest I am]

I don't think believers are necessarily more responsible for population growth than non believers. However those that do not or cannot use contraception as a result of their religious dogma, are bound to produce more pregnancies than those who practice contraception. I guess that's all you could claim.

My question was not a claim but with good answers like yours, I may just make it so.

Regards
DL

[psychictv]

You are saying that six going on seven billion human beings is not too many human beings? Please clarify.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We have enough space for all of those people. We're capable of producing enough food for all of those people. Some studies predict that the world population will peak in the middle part of this century and then start to decline as developing nations finish developing.

I don't see any evidence of an immediate problem, and I don't see much evidence of an unstoppable longterm problem. Where starvation exists it's mostly an issue of poor distribution of resources rather than an absolute global shortage of food production.

Why do you believe that seven billion people is too many?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Overcopulation is the root cause of overpopulation.

(This is a reference to a forty year old joke in MAD magazine: A small poster showed the following words "The birth control pill is responsible for the copulation explosion")


We have a winner.

The population explosion is a problem because it's just way too damn much fun lighting the fuse.

[A.A. Alfie]

GIA
How about answering some questions now?


You continue putting up unsupported assertions/opinions.

Why do you believe that education levels are dropping?
Why do you believe that the "haves" are too slow helping?
How have any stats produced so far suggestive that "religion" is responsible?


But now your language - as illustrated in your quote above - and your logic too, are no longer making sense.

As you are not coming up with any reasoned arguments to support your case - or even stating clearly what your case is - this debate, as far as I am concerned, is finished.

And in response you provide..
these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate)

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk)

Regards
DL


That, if anything seem to actually support what we are saying and disproving you. You might like to point out the connections between the OP and these references.
Lastly, are you suggesting that a scene from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is the last word on religion and overpopulation?


My question was not a claim but with good answers like yours, I may just make it so.



Cherry picking

[A.A. Alfie]

And I ask again....


What!?
So now religion isn't responsible but the first/western world?

I wish you'd make up your mind.

Tell me, what actually is your agenda here?
That you just want to bash all religion?
Bashing the Catholic Church?
Bashing the western world?
Promotion of your communist/socialist or other politics?
You just want to practice baseless arguments to allow you to join some truther movement?
Something else?

Who and/or what are we actually debating here?




So, it's time to either retire, or show us some real evidence on which you base your opinions.

[Greatest I am]

And I ask again....







So, it's time to either retire, or show us some real evidence on which you base your opinions.


My question was not oppinion.

One at a time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

If we consider the earth as a common then the restriction on the use of contraceptives for certain farmers, so to speak, hurts the overall resources.
Some religions do this.
One of the best ways to curb reproduction is contraceptives. Some religions oppose there use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups)

If you look at the numbers within religions that do not promote contraception you may see what that does to the commons.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

So, it's time to either retire, or show us some real evidence on which you base your opinions.

World fertility by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg)

Religion by country.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/religion.php (http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/religion.php)

Sierra Leone 5.88 Muslim 60%, indigenous beliefs 30%, Christian 10%
Benin 5.49 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%
Burundi 6.33 Christian 67% (Roman Catholic 62%, Protestant 5%), indigenous beliefs 23%, Muslim 10%
Somalia 6.52 Sunni Muslim
Guinea 5.2 Muslim 85%, Christian 8%, indigenous beliefs 7%
Chad 5.31 Muslim 50%, Christian 25%, indigenous beliefs (mostly animism) 25%
Rwanda 5.25 Roman Catholic 52.7%, Protestant 24%, Adventist 10.4%, Muslim 1.9%, indigenous beliefs and other 6.5%, none 4.5% (1996)
Zambia 5.15 Christian 50%-75%, Muslim and Hindu 24%-49%, indigenous beliefs 1%
Mali 7.29 Muslim 90%, indigenous beliefs 9%, Christian 1%
Angola 6.12 indigenous beliefs 47%, Roman Catholic 38%, Protestant 15% (1998 est.)
Malawi 5.59 Protestant 55%, Roman Catholic 20%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs
Niger 7.75 Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christians
Madagascar 5.14 indigenous beliefs 52%, Christian 41%, Muslim 7%
Mozambique 5.18 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%
Yemen 6.32 Muslim including Shaf'i (Sunni) and Zaydi (Shi'a), small numbers of Jewish, Christian, and Hindu
Afghanistan 6.53 Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%
Uganda 6.77 Roman Catholic 33%, Protestant 33%, Muslim 16%, indigenous beliefs 18%
Congo 6.2 Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 20%, Kimbanguist 10%, Muslim 10%, other syncretic sects and indigenous beliefs 10%
Ethiopia 6.12 Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%
If any do not see the correlation between some religious groups and reproduction that is pushing overpopulation then my math must be off.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

World fertility by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TFR_vs_PPP_2009.svg)

Religion by country.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/religion.php (http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/religion.php)

The numbers shown are fertility rates and religions by %

Sierra Leone 5.88 Muslim 60%, indigenous beliefs 30%, Christian 10%
Benin 5.49 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%
Burundi 6.33 Christian 67% (Roman Catholic 62%, Protestant 5%), indigenous beliefs 23%, Muslim 10%
Somalia 6.52 Sunni Muslim
Guinea 5.2 Muslim 85%, Christian 8%, indigenous beliefs 7%
Chad 5.31 Muslim 50%, Christian 25%, indigenous beliefs (mostly animism) 25%
Rwanda 5.25 Roman Catholic 52.7%, Protestant 24%, Adventist 10.4%, Muslim 1.9%, indigenous beliefs and other 6.5%, none 4.5% (1996)
Zambia 5.15 Christian 50%-75%, Muslim and Hindu 24%-49%, indigenous beliefs 1%
Mali 7.29 Muslim 90%, indigenous beliefs 9%, Christian 1%
Angola 6.12 indigenous beliefs 47%, Roman Catholic 38%, Protestant 15% (1998 est.)
Malawi 5.59 Protestant 55%, Roman Catholic 20%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs
Niger 7.75 Muslim 80%, remainder indigenous beliefs and Christians
Madagascar 5.14 indigenous beliefs 52%, Christian 41%, Muslim 7%
Mozambique 5.18 indigenous beliefs 50%, Christian 30%, Muslim 20%
Yemen 6.32 Muslim including Shaf'i (Sunni) and Zaydi (Shi'a), small numbers of Jewish, Christian, and Hindu
Afghanistan 6.53 Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi'a Muslim 15%, other 1%
Uganda 6.77 Roman Catholic 33%, Protestant 33%, Muslim 16%, indigenous beliefs 18%
Congo 6.2 Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 20%, Kimbanguist 10%, Muslim 10%, other syncretic sects and indigenous beliefs 10%
Ethiopia 6.12 Muslim 45%-50%, Ethiopian Orthodox 35%-40%, animist 12%, other 3%-8%
If any do not see the correlation between some religious groups and reproduction that is pushing overpopulation then my math must be off.

Regards
DL

[Nosi]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. We have enough space for all of those people. We're capable of producing enough food for all of those people. Some studies predict that the world population will peak in the middle part of this century and then start to decline as developing nations finish developing.

I don't see any evidence of an immediate problem, and I don't see much evidence of an unstoppable longterm problem. Where starvation exists it's mostly an issue of poor distribution of resources rather than an absolute global shortage of food production.

Why do you believe that seven billion people is too many?

It is not so much food but water that is developing into the problem. We are using/polluting our clean, potable water supplies and pumping underground aquifers to produce that food you speak of at an alarming rate. Climate is also changing and rapidly. There is plenty of water in the ocean, but it needs to be desalinated, which calls for a great deal of energy, something we are short on too as we hit peak oil. New energy solutions take money to develop, money which the bankers have squandered, leaving the world in the biggest money mess sense the Great Depression of the 1930's.:scared:

[A.A. Alfie]

]If any do not see the correlation between some religious groups and reproduction that is pushing overpopulation then my math must be off.[/SIZE][/FONT]



You need to show how you come to your math. How does religion relate to the figures? How does cocioeconomics not?

Now, just to completely foul up your theory...
how would the population of an Islamic nation be impacted on by religion?
They DO NOT REJECT CONTRACEPTION ergo, it wouldn't.

Your assertions are absolutely baseless.
Please admit it and move on.

[A.A. Alfie]

And Buddhists do not reject contraception.

[A.A. Alfie]

And Hinduism does not reject contraception

[A.A. Alfie]

Sikhism does not reject contraception

[A.A. Alfie]

And Judaism does not reject contraception

[A.A. Alfie]

And Taoism and Confucianism do not reject contraception

[A.A. Alfie]

And as I pointed out earlier, there are roughly half a billion practicing catholics - of these I have no idea how many actually refuse to use contraception. At any rate, it matters not as they are not - clearly - responsible for the (your supposed) overpopulation of the planet.

This debate is over.

[psychictv]

It is not so much food but water that is developing into the problem. We are using/polluting our clean, potable water supplies and pumping underground aquifers to produce that food you speak of at an alarming rate. Climate is also changing and rapidly. There is plenty of water in the ocean, but it needs to be desalinated, which calls for a great deal of energy, something we are short on too as we hit peak oil. New energy solutions take money to develop, money which the bankers have squandered, leaving the world in the biggest money mess sense the Great Depression of the 1930's.:scared:

What does any of that have to do with population? Pollution and climate change have been problems for decades, when the world population was just a fraction of what it is now. They would continue to be problems even if we somehow froze the world population at its current level. What you are talking about are problems of technology, resource management, and overconsumption. They are problems that need to be solved regardless of population.

[chaggle]

Sorry if this has been posted before - I didn't spot it on my way through

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/birth-rate-chief-rabbi-sacks

"Europe today is the most secular region in the world. Europe is the only region in the world experiencing population decline. Wherever you turn today the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.

[Greatest I am]

Sorry if this has been posted before - I didn't spot it on my way through

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/birth-rate-chief-rabbi-sacks

Thanks for that.

Regards
DL

[A.A. Alfie]

Nothing for nearly two weeks. I assume this debate is over GIA?

I sincerely hope your question has been answered and you understand that it is a resounding "No!"

[Greatest I am]

Nothing for nearly two weeks. I assume this debate is over GIA?

I sincerely hope your question has been answered and you understand that it is a resounding "No!"

You have not seen how many have said, yes.

As the above link above shows, it is not secularists that are over breeding.

Regards
DL

[A.A. Alfie]

You have not seen how many have said, yes.

As the above link above shows, it is not secularists that are over breeding.

Regards
DL


So, if it is not secularists, it it the religious?

Fail!

That's like me saying to you..
"I (and others) have shown it isn't the religious, therefore it must be the secularists".

Neither statement is true.

The answer to the OP remains a resounding "No" and the burden of proof is/remains with you.

[Greatest I am]

So, if it is not secularists, it it the religious?

Fail!

That's like me saying to you..
"I (and others) have shown it isn't the religious, therefore it must be the secularists".

Neither statement is true.

The answer to the OP remains a resounding "No" and the burden of proof is/remains with you.

If secularism, the majority of western states, were maintaining their population then we would not have to seek so many refuges to keep our population on the rise. Hell, we are even having to pay our citizens to have children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
If we consider the earth as a common then the restriction on the use of contraceptives for certain farmers, so to speak, hurts the overall resources.
Some religions do this.
One of the best ways to curb reproduction is contraceptives. Some religions oppose there use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups)
If you look at the numbers within religions that do not promote contraception you may see what that does to the commons.

Regards
DL

[A.A. Alfie]

If secularism, the majority of western states, were maintaining their population then we would not have to seek so many refuges to keep our population on the rise. Hell, we are even having to pay our citizens to have children.[/SIZE]

As I don't actually know what country you are from it's hard to make the direct relationship I would like to. That said lets assume you are from the USA. Your evidence does not support your claim at all - the info you provide below shows that the USA is Catholic Protestant. i.e. Not secular.

If we consider the earth as a common then the restriction on the use of contraceptives for certain farmers, so to speak, hurts the overall resources.
Some religions do this.
One of the best ways to curb reproduction is contraceptives. Some religions oppose there use.


Which "religions do this"? i.e. restrict or curb use?
And how does that relate to the non use of contraception based on religion?

[SIZE=2]If you look at the numbers within religions that do not promote contraception you may see what that does to the commons.

And I may not. And guess what? I don't because its not there.

Again. Which religions do not promotote contraception or, more importantly which reject contraception?

Your connections are remote at best and your conclusions false, based on what you think you see. Please provide some EVIDENCE that supports what you say, as to date you have not. Moreover you have not bothered to counter any of the arguments that have been put up that actually disprove your bias.

[Greatest I am]

Your connections are remote at best and your conclusions false, based on what you think you see. Please provide some EVIDENCE that supports what you say, as to date you have not. Moreover you have not bothered to counter any of the arguments that have been put up that actually disprove your bias.

Take a look at post 80 or 81 for the stats you are looking for.

Regards
DL

[A.A. Alfie]

Take a look at post 80 or 81 for the stats you are looking for.

Regards
DL

I've already shown you why this is a FAIL.

Please try again