"We need more breeders, more babies"

[Zzyzx]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

[connermt]

"Since the Earth supports only about Seven Billion humans, breeding should be encouraged and non-breeders (such as lesbians and gays) should be coerced or 'corrected' so they can contribute to the breeding efforts (within marriage, of course)."

"Likewise, masturbation is to be regarded as 'sinful', 'unnatural' and 'reprehensible' -- no matter how naturally human it may be -- because it does not lead to pregnancy and increase of human population."

"Efforts to prevent pregnancy during intercourse or having sex that is non-reproductive are contrary to 'god's will.'"

Supposedly a "god" and his 'self-identified representatives' favor increasing human population even in the face of environmental overload.

Questions for debate:

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

2. Is quantity of human life to be given greater emphasis than quality of life?

3. Could it be that the claims by "representatives" regarding "god's" supposed directives on reproduction actually represent their own agenda of increasing their constituency, power, wealth?

1) Not likely.
2) Depends on who you ask. Those who seek power and influenece would likely believe quantity is better than quality
3) As with most all christianity, those in control (leaders) seem to feed on power and control. No big surprise there.

[Zzyzx]

.

Malthus ignored basic things like pricing, productivity, capital and technological advancement. Basically he ignored economics because the discipline was not fully developed when he was around, which is why his works aren't really accepted among economists today. His assessment about food growing arithmetically is factually wrong. Due to enhanced productivity, capital and technological advancements the food supply has the potential to grow at the same rate as the growth rate of the population.

Thomas Malthus was a preacher and a scholar. His ideas regarding population were advanced for his time (200 years ago). They have since gone through cycles of acceptance, rejection and modification by various scholarly disciplines, politicians, vested interests, and to some extent citizens in general.

Biologists demonstrate that any organism which is free to reproduce without control will increase in population to the carrying capacity of its environment, will damage the environment, and then will decline as the environment is rendered unsuitable.

The famous Kaibab Deer Irruption is an example. Mule deer in the Kaibab Plateau area, north of the Grand Canyon, were "protected" by the US government beginning in 1905 under direction of President Teddy Roosevelt. When predators (mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, and wolves) were removed, the deer herd increased from an initial estimated 4000 to 100,000. That number exceeded long-term carrying capacity of the habitat and resulted in severe overgrazing. There was a massive die-off (estimated 60,000 deer died of starvation during the mid 1920s) and by 1930 or so the population of deer (even in the absence of predators) was less than 20,000 – and by 1940 it was around 10,000.

I personally observe the concept in operation while making wine (no I don't do it magically). A small quantity of vintner's yeast (or common baker's yeast) is introduced to five gallons of water, fruit juice, and sugar. The yeast multiply rapidly for a time, consume the nutrients and leave their waste products (carbon dioxide and alcohol). After reaching a peak of activity (indicated by bubbles and out-gassing) the activity declines and after a couple or few months it stops completely. The yeast are dead. I filter them out and drink the alcohol.

Does any of this apply to humans? Of course it does (in my opinion). Yes, the "day of reckoning" can be forestalled by advances in agriculture, transportation and distribution, food preservation and waste minimization, medicine, technology (such as refrigeration), etc. BUT the Earth and its resources are finite. There IS an upper limit on the population of any organism set by its environment. As the limit is approached one can expect decrease in "quality of life" through crowding, conflict, rapid transmission of disease through the population, etc.

[Moses Yoder]

There are advantages to having many children. In my parents family of 8 children they told us all the money we earned until we were 21 was theirs. That was a big advantage for them. Also, now that 1/2 the children have moved to other states there are stil 4 children around to take care of my parents in their old age.

So far as lack of food goes, my wife works at a grocery store and they throw away probably a hundred times as much food as we eat.

I have a family of 2 children, and use birth control so my wife and I can have the sexual relationship that is necessary to maintain a marriage without procreating. Also, I let my children keep all the money they earn. So I will not have nearly the advantages my parents do when I get old. In fact there is a good chance I will not have anybody to take care of me when I get old.

[Zzyzx]

.

1. Does promoting population increase make sense in a heavily populated world?

It makes sense to those whose immediate concern is their country's quality of life. There are countries that actively try to help their fertility/replacement rate so it doesn't adversely affect their economy.

I agree that some nations encourage reproduction with a view toward economy and competitiveness.

I maintain that national economy may be a component of or contributor to quality of life of citizens; however, I question whether competitive economy is often over-emphasized at the expense of other components of quality of life.

[dusk]

All models that I know of say that the worlds population will start shrinking again and set in at some 10 billion. Even that is pretty dire. We in the 1st world a fine, 2nd too but in Africa they starve already every other year. Nigeria cannot feed their people without help. Today they have some 1 Billion people and already most aid comes too late. By 2050 there should be 2 Billion and while they have a lot of land to build lots of crops they didn't manage the last 50 years why should they suddenly now.
Yemen is a dry piece of nothing with a poor population, how should they even pay for all the food they need to import.
And with climate change many places are supposed to be getting more arid.

The developed countries can handle their expected population just fine, but I don't see how the poor people will do. I read a lot about the food prices and the claim that speculation is driving the prices. While that is definitely the case to an extent, but the effect will shrink once the money stops pouring into those markets and the prices won't go down. Americans complain about expensive gas, when Europeans can handle 3 times the price. You are really fucked if 50-80% of your weekly living expenses just increase by a factor of 2 in one year.
It really limits the chances of poor people to get out of being poor. If you don't own land or the money to invest in the right equipment there isn't that much one can do.

If there are too many young people looking for jobs there is bound to be a lot of unemployment. Young people don't have money and cannot drive consumption. Only the old people do but they don't have enough nor spend enough. The job market can only handle so many new workers each year.

For all this reason I think the pope who has quite an influence in Africa and other poor Christian countries is acting hugely irresponsible with his no contraception policy. That is just asking for poverty and desease.
The Muslims aren't any different.
It wouldn't solve all the other problems but would be a better idea to change those be fertile policies. It is just not a good idea. What they need is jobs not too many unemployed young people that pull everybody else down with them because they see no other way but criminal behaviour, occasional riots, rebellions, wars. The people with jobs rarely are interested in fighting wars.