Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Room for More: Population Is Declining
CatholicExchange.com ^ | 01-19-07 | Patti Maguire Armstrong

Posted on 01/21/2007 7:41:49 AM PST by Salvation

Patti Maguire Armstrong  
Other Articles by Patti Maguire Armstrong
Printer Friendly Version
 
Room for More: Population Is Declining

January 19, 2007

After years of hearing that the earth is in serious danger due to overpopulation, I've got some surprising news: the world's population will soon be shrinking.  The bad news is that because of those who swallowed "the earth won't sustain us" lie, there are a lot of people that should be here but are not.

Of course there will be no apology, but only a morphing of the original message.  One would think that groups like Zero Population Growth, who brought us cute slogans such as: "The pill in time saves nine!" and "This line is too long.  Join ZPG!" might show some remorse for brainwashing throngs of people to be more committed to trees than to parenthood.  Thirty-eight years later, ZPG hands out condoms with the wrappers embossed, "Save the world: Use a condom" and is working on a National Population Policy.  I suppose they want a pat on the back for convincing so many that the sky was falling -- or at least that the earth was shrinking under the weight of humanity.  And I also suppose they see themselves as heroes for leaving holes in families where children would have been, so now there's more room for grass.

Unfortunately, the media picked up their refrain, leaving only brave, defiant or oblivious souls to dare to push their fertility beyond the acceptable number of two.  Ask any mother of three or more how many times she had people point to her pregnant belly and ask, "Don't you know what causes that?" When I was a young child, a big family was thought to be a blessing.  But by the time I was an adult, big families were seen as headed by big buffoons — ignorant, selfish, or out-of-control adults unwilling to curb their fertility for the sake of the rest of the world.  Thus it is that people began to feel free to ask rude questions in an effort to get the numbskulls to invest in birth control.

The reverse would be unthinkable.  Parents of a large family would not ask those of a small family, "Don't you two know what to do to have more children?" As the mother of ten children — eight the old-fashioned way and two brothers orphaned in Kenya — sometimes I actually enjoy unsolicited opinions.  "Boy, I'm glad it's you and not me," gives me the chance to say, "Me too," but I have never inquired as to why they were not enjoying their own children enough to have more.  I have no desire to pry into the private lives of others.  Yet thinking we are taking up too much space in this world, some people become militant and angry with those of us who opt out of the "two kids only" club.

The Earth Was Never in Trouble

 Ironically, the earth was never really in trouble to begin with.  Although the UN announced that the world's population reached 6 billion on October 12, 1999, some demographers decried this as inaccurate due to false reporting from many countries.  Whether the numbers were correct or not, growth has slowed and in some areas is reversing itself.  The United Nations reports that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have declining populations. According to Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, the populations of the developed nations today are static or declining.  "The Census Bureau's figures are contradicted by those of the United Nations Population Division," Mosher states.  The UN predicts that by the year 2050, Russia's population will have declined by 21 million, Italy's by 16 million and Germany's and Spain's by 9 million.  Mosher predicts that by the year 2050, persons aged 65 and above will be almost twice as numerous as children 15 years and younger.

It has become an increasing reality for countries losing population to institute liberal immigration policies that allow for more workers to take up the slack.  Even in the developing world, family size has shrunk from an average of five children in 1900 to less than three today.  Ironically, many countries facing under-population are finally realizing that children are their most important resource.  There's even a growing trend in countries such as in Russia to offer financial incentives to families willing to have more than one child.

Dr.  Jacqueline R.  Kasun is an economist and the author of <i>The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control</i> (Ignatius, 1988, 1998). According to her, regardless of what the numbers are, our earth has never been in danger of too many people.  In her book, Kasun states:

It's reported by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1 to 3 percent of the earth's land surface.

If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas.  Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person.

The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 per square mile — somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.

Regardless, the lies have been taken as fact and the world's policy makers act accordingly.  Fueled by false information, governments are committed by law to reduce worldwide population growth.

Abortions and sterilizations are pushed and even forced on citizens with United Nations approval and often financing, while emergency aid to Third-World countries has come to include first and foremost, free and sometimes coercive birth control.

Our public schools teach kids in social studies that the earth is dying under the strain of people, then, when the bell rings, the kids file into the next class where "sex education" teaches them how the various birth controls work to curb population growth.  Even our elementary-aged children come home from school worried about our "dying" planet.  It seems the height of irresponsibility to pass on lies and frighten little children with them. The media and the education system listen to and pass along only one side of the story.  But there is another side.

Myths of Overpopulation

Although you would never know this by listening to the evening news, the scientific community is in great disagreement over whether global warming is attributable to human activity and if there is a connection to so-called "overpopulation."  Another scare comes to us from tree-huggers.  Overpopulation is being blamed for the deforestation of the planet.  Yet according to Kasun, thirty percent of the earth is covered in trees, the same figure as in the 1950s. 

Another fact: Trees are growing 33 percent faster than they are being cut....  There has also been great agitation about the destruction of the tropical rainforests.  Someone has claimed that an area twice the size of Belgium is now being logged worldwide each year, but people don't realize Belgium could fit into the world's tropical forests 500 times, and in the meantime, the rest of the world's trees — 99.6 percent of them — are continuing to grow.

I wish Kasun could convince the people of Oregon of this fact.  When I was there last spring, I read an article in the Oregonian newspaper, lamenting the cutting down of one particular old growth tree on someone's private property.  Twenty-one of his neighbors had tried to stop him by getting his permit revoked.  In a state where euthanasia and abortion draw little attention from the general public, the death of this tree caused great mourning.

Air pollution and acid rain are also blamed on overpopulation.  Air pollution is largely a result of how industries do business.  Due to better emission controls, it is declining significantly in the United States.  Blaming it on more babies being born is a cop-out.

During the sixties and seventies, massive famine due to our dwindling ability to feed ourselves was supposed to be just around the corner.  Today, food supplies have never been more abundant or less expensive.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50 percent in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17 percent in the developing regions.  Our own government actually pays farmers over a billion dollars not to farm 33.5 million acres.

News coverage of famines provide tragic photo opportunities for the media to massage the overpopulation myth.  But famines are caused by extreme droughts, war, ineptitude, or corrupt governments, not because there are too many people to feed. Kasun reports:

Western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation," but that was simply not true.  The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms.  That country's leftist regime, not its population, caused the tragedy.

In fact, Africa, beset with problems often blamed on "overpopulation," has only one-fifth the population density of Europe....

The cry that our natural resources are in short supply has an ebb and flow to it.  Some may remember the "energy crises" in the seventies.  It was a year that people stopped hanging outdoor Christmas lights because our energy was in short supply.  I lived in the Detroit area and our family tradition of driving around to look at lights came to an abrupt halt.  No one dared to waste energy on something as frivolous as Christmas lights.  Oddly enough, thirty years later there seems to be ample energy for all our lights.

The Question of Poverty

But doesn't overpopulation cause poverty?  In reality, when the supposed 6 billionth baby was born, he was born into a world that has never been more prosperous.  According to the World Bank, average income in the developing world has doubled since 1960.  And behind the population explosion is the explosion in health.  Two hundred years ago, global average human life expectancy was under thirty years.  Today it is more than sixty-five years.

I am not arguing that social, economic and environmental problems do not exist.  I am simply stating that overpopulation is not the problem.  Modern societies are forgetting that children are a blessing.  Fortunately, it's just a matter of time before the tide turns.  Those intent on "saving the planet" have lower fertility rates than couples that see children as a blessing.  Do the math.

Several years ago, I heard a radio report to the effect that the most requested gift from children to in-store Santa Clauses was for little brothers or sisters.  For them, it's the best gift they can imagine.  Some moms and dads have forgotten this or been scared away from the blessing.

I am no scientist, but it only seems logical that if there's room in heaven for one more soul, then God must have arranged for there to be enough room on the earth for more.  After all, the planet is passing away.  We are not.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; environment; increase; population; prolife; sinkthelifeboat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 last
To: Arthalion

"Option 2, if carried out on a wide scale, would wreak complete havoc on the American economy. As average household incomes nosedived, we'd go into an economic depression that would easily rival the depression of the 1930's."

So you believe that if everyone spent less than they made and put the rest in savings that that is a formula for economic depression for America?


141 posted on 01/22/2007 2:56:11 AM PST by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat

That's out of line - just as criticizing someone for not having children is out of line. It's a personal decision either way.


142 posted on 01/22/2007 5:45:44 AM PST by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Very interesting article, Salvation.

I haven't read all of the posts, but noting post #8, I would recommend that "America Alone" by Mark Steyn answers many of the questions about zero and negative population growth of nations throughout the world and why it poses a danger to every indigenous culture of those nations.

The book is excellent and frightening at the same time. Western Europe believes immigrants are going to replace children of their respective native cultures to ensure their pensions and other government needs are funded. However there is no guarantee that this funding will continue once a country is taken over (and it doesn't take a majority) by an immigrant population.

The book I referenced above paints a grim, albeit accurate picture of our world if only certain ethnic groups, particularly those with a professed desire for conquest, are the ones reproducing at a rate that exceeds zero population growth.


EODGUY
143 posted on 01/22/2007 7:06:36 AM PST by EODGUY (If feel so comfortable knowing we have an honest, ethical, majority party in both houses. /gasp/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cowtowney
So you believe that if everyone spent less than they made and put the rest in savings that that is a formula for economic depression for America?

I believe that if you cut average household incomes by 30% to 50% nationwide and eliminated all non-essential spending that yes, you would get a depression. Living in a capitalist society means that people need to spend money for the economy to work. Take away half the money, and the economy implodes. The biggest sectors hit would be real estate. How would you like to be the one to see the value of your $300,000 home slashed to $150,000 because average incomes were cut by half...and average buying power right along with it. Most modern pricing, on real estate especially, but in many different sectors, would be completely unsustainable.

In 2002, the latest year I have numbers for, the median HOUSEHOLD income in the U.S. was a smidge over $42,000 a year. In that same year, the median INDIVIDUAL income was $22,800. It's really not a complex argument. What happens to the economy when you take all of those working women out of the workforce and that nationwide individual income BECOMES the household income? It doesn't take a lot of thinking to realize how badly that would cripple the U.S. economy. We're not talking about a minor economic downturn here, like we saw after 9/11,or even a prolonges economic slump like we enjoyed under Carter. We're talking a full blown depression, breadlines and all.

In the Great Depression incomes fell by 20% to 50%, and we all KNOW what that lead to. There is absolutely no debate on the economic impact that income loss had on the United States and the world at large. While the Christian intention may be good here, I can't help but wonder at the fact that so many people are willing to go through that all over again.
144 posted on 01/22/2007 8:49:07 AM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; beagle9
Just because there are some people on the pro-death side who link the two (abortion and population), that does not mean that we have to do it too. It is right to be pro-life, and that means caring about the people eating gorillas and tree bark, and well as the little people on the way to being born.

Would you say we should be against car accidents because they decrease the world's population? Should the pro-abort crowd be for car accidents? That's how absurd her argument is. We're against them because they take human lives.

Just separate the two issues and you will be able to think more clearly.

Saving lives is not sleazy and dishonest. I don't recall saying that. Using erroneous statements about population to confuse everyone into being pro-life for the wrong reasons--that's sleazy.

145 posted on 01/22/2007 10:41:53 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


146 posted on 01/22/2007 4:52:21 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EODGUY

It IS a grim picture!


147 posted on 01/22/2007 5:18:38 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

"Using erroneous statements about population to confuse everyone into being pro-life for the wrong reasons--that's sleazy."

I am trying to understand your logic. To me, the premise of the article was fairly straightforward, that is, population growth was (is) not the problem that it once was portrayed to be. The underlying theme was that the "pro-choice" lobby used this rational overpopulation fear as a red herring for abortion rights. While the articles main thrust (IMO) is one of trying to explain that abortion is not needed for population control; because there is no population control problem to begin with; it does not say that abortion is the only reason for this false premise. Please tell me specifically where the the "erroneous statements" in the article are located. The other question is how can one be "pro-life for the wrong reason"? Are there some reasons where we should not be pro-life? Your underlying message seems to be that if a certain country is "overpopulated" then abortion is OK, at least in that country. The article is quite clear, in spite of what you call "people eating gorillas and tree bark", the overpopulation scare was and is a sham. Starvation is not the product of overpopulation, but inept food distribution, caused primarily by corrupt governments (Think Zimbabwe). I am pretty sure I am thinking clearly, but then again maybe not. LOL


148 posted on 01/22/2007 6:06:13 PM PST by beagle9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; AliVeritas; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; Augie76; ...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

149 posted on 01/22/2007 10:17:02 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("Safe sex? Not until they develop a condom for the heart."--Freeper All the Best)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
It's not just about having more kids...although I wish people would do so---(there is some evidence that this is turning around thankfully - more women are quitting the workplace and staying home to raise their kids) It's about the work ethic disappearing too.

The Industrial Revolution developed mechanization in the agriculture sector and the result was that menial farm laborers became menial factory workers (not all of course--there are no machines yet that can pick lettuce and grapes for example - there is no motivation to do so either---farmers get subsidies and cheap willing so why bother). When US factories began moving overseas, the menial factory workers became menial service sector workers.

The Robot Revolution (just beginning) is different from the IR because it's not going to simply be a matter of replacing certain jobs because robots will be capable of doing any menial job that a human could do.

THE problem today is that the robotics revolution has not yet caught up to the late industrial conditions that exist here. It is still cheaper to import legally or illegally workers who can do the menial work that many American simply won't do at any wage!
150 posted on 01/23/2007 8:39:09 AM PST by eleni121 ( + En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: beagle9
You are not thinking clearly at all if you think my underlying message is that if a country is overpopulated abortion is okay.

The "erroneous statements" were outlined in my first post on this thread.

The reason overpopulation is not the problem it once was is that books and organizations have publicized it, but it is quite definitely the overriding problem of our planet. To say food distribution is the problem is to blind oneself to the fact that all of our lives at this moment depend on reliable food distribution. If it fell apart, you and I would starve. The whole Rube Goldberg contraption could collapse at any time. We are very far removed from the food supply because of overpopulation and require these elaborate infrastructures to keep us going. Wherever they break down, you have starvation. "Food distribution" is a disgraceful rationalization for continuing to procreate wildly.

You are either willfully misinterpreting or pathetically misunderstanding what I say.

151 posted on 01/24/2007 1:49:47 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

"You are either willfully misinterpreting or pathetically misunderstanding what I say."

I think that may a little harsh don't you think? The whole premise of the article is that there is not an overpopulation problem. I agree with that premise as this is what all of the empirical data suggests. Invectives and attacks will not change these facts. You may want to read this.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/food.htm
Either way we will just have to agree to disagree on the subject of overpopulation as you seem convinced that it is a problem while I do not. Personal attacks are probably not the way to get anyone to see your point of view however.


152 posted on 01/24/2007 2:52:17 PM PST by beagle9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Perhaps one could ask, "Why do we need any people". Declining populations are certainly not a good to be sought. A stable population for economic reasons is not even a good.


153 posted on 01/24/2007 5:55:35 PM PST by Klondike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: beagle9
Good for you. You found one of the many sources of obfuscation on this problem.

Meanwhile, Earth is trapped between Venus and Mars and will probably never escape, with these two powerful demons having evolved along with us.

By the way, that was not a personal attack. It was a logical deduction from your misstatement of what I said. A personal attack would have been to call you a blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant.

154 posted on 01/24/2007 6:01:15 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

I may be a "blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant" but I think I will let the readers decide on who the blind, stumbling, one-issue useful idiot of the fanatic and ignorant is in this case. Thanks for the enlightening debate.


155 posted on 01/24/2007 7:50:52 PM PST by beagle9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: beagle9

I'm sure they'll appreciate your permission.


156 posted on 01/25/2007 12:36:57 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-156 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson