Global warming and Depopulation


#1

Just though i'd post this as i believe it is something that is anti family. What i've realized that's happening over the last few year's due to the puny philosophy of relativism is the increasing war against life and it's sacredness even down to population control. I even hear an increasing number tell me that the world's population is too big and i can guarantee that within 30 year's at most the Catholic view that society playing God and controlling an maintaining a certain population number will be shunned upon just like it's teaching on abortion. Here is a video i found shocking in which Bill Gate's publicly announce's depopulation as the best method of fighting Global warming

youtube.com/watch?v=jSqcRMVbtpo&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=04pJdaFOwgQ&feature=related

In the second video he make's it obvious that through vaccination in poorer countries to save the number of live's it will also benefit in reducing the population thus it's obvious he's talking about increasing infertility through the use of vaccines


#2

I attached a rather interesting graphic on the subject of overpopulation. It was linked to by New Advent.

I am sorry the graphic is rather poor quality.

The top left hand (looking at the monitor) is the world's entire population, if it were put in an area as dense as Paris.

The top right hand is the same, but for San Francisco.

The middle left is for New York City

The middle right is for London

The bottom left is for Singapore

and the bottom right is for Houston.


#3

[quote="ZDHayden, post:2, topic:249448"]
I attached a rather interesting graphic on the subject of overpopulation. It was linked to by New Advent.

I am sorry the graphic is rather poor quality.

The top left hand (looking at the monitor) is the world's entire population, if it were put in an area as dense as Paris.

The top right hand is the same, but for San Francisco.

The middle left is for New York City

The middle right is for London

The bottom left is for Singapore

and the bottom right is for Houston.

[/quote]

Thank's for that, yes i remember hearing something similar about how it could fit into Texas, the thing is though what they are spouting is lie's, it is their attempt and belief that it is better human's have control over everything including population. Because they do not believe God exist's they believe that man must become responsible and take control of everything, basically man become's God because they believe he must. This is what's happening and as i said i guarantee you most secularist's like on subject's such as this just as they did with abortion will be in support of it in year's to come believing that it is best for society


#4

I’ll be honest - I think the responsibility for the way society is going falls rightly upon the Catholic Church. Let me explain:

The laity, religious, priests, bishops all could have - we all could have and should have - worked harder to prevent this. Our sins - each sin we individuals commit - weakens the whole. Society is failing because we Catholics are failing to be saints - all of us. The weakness of a single member of the Church weakens the whole.

The fault for the growing popularity of population control, abortion, contraception and the like falls not on the secularists, not on the politicians, not on demons, not on Satan. The fault lies with us! We dropped the ball, are dropping it and will continue to drop it. Now is the time for saints to rise. Now is the time for holy priests and bishops; holy lay men and women; holy Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, Jesuits, Augustinians, Carmelites, and all the rest. But now is fading, and so few (oh how I wish to be among them!) have turned, like Sts. Augustine and Mary Magdalene, from their sins.

This is a battle that cannot be won by political force, although such force is needed.

Twilight is upon us, and soon the Church will be engulfed in night. The battle has only just begun, and we are divided into thousands of parts, many warring against each other. The Church will indeed grow smaller, and many will celebrate and proclaim Her dead.

Population control, abortion, contraception: these are not our opponents, but symptoms of the disease.


#5

Somehow it always shocks people that the groups who are quick to point the finger of racism at others…are the most covertly racist themselves…


#6

Part of the problem is in our misinterpretation of Genesis 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Be fruitful - be productive in matters of the spirit allowing the will of God to be achieved in and through your life.
Multiply - Increase in understanding and knowledge
Replenish the earth - sustain the earth for all future generations
Have dominion - be good managers of all the earths creatures

Until we move away from the idea that God instructed us to continue populating the earth ad infinitum we have not correctly understood the “Great Charge”…the first words of God found in the Bible.


#7

[quote="tskrobacz, post:6, topic:249448"]
Part of the problem is in our misinterpretation of Genesis 1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Be fruitful - be productive in matters of the spirit allowing the will of God to be achieved in and through your life.
Multiply - Increase in understanding and knowledge
Replenish the earth - sustain the earth for all future generations
Have dominion - be good managers of all the earths creatures

Until we move away from the idea that God instructed us to continue populating the earth ad infinitum we have not correctly understood the "Great Charge"...the first words of God found in the Bible.

[/quote]

Nor did he imply that man have dominion over who should be fertile and not


#8

[quote="Paddy1989, post:1, topic:249448"]
Just though i'd post this as i believe it is something that is anti family. What i've realized that's happening over the last few year's due to the puny philosophy of relativism is the increasing war against life and it's sacredness even down to population control. I even hear an increasing number tell me that the world's population is too big and i can guarantee that within 30 year's at most the Catholic view that society playing God and controlling an maintaining a certain population number will be shunned upon just like it's teaching on abortion. Here is a video i found shocking in which Bill Gate's publicly announce's depopulation as the best method of fighting Global warming

youtube.com/watch?v=jSqcRMVbtpo&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=04pJdaFOwgQ&feature=related

In the second video he make's it obvious that through vaccination in poorer countries to save the number of live's it will also benefit in reducing the population thus it's obvious he's talking about increasing infertility through the use of vaccines

[/quote]

Iniquity and avarice shall be our bane. Restraint and cooperation have been anathematized with avarice and wanton hedonism the zeitgeist. Compassion for the third world is filling their water with contraceptives and offering free abortions. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? What have we become.


#9

I can not help to wonder:

What would happen to the Overpopulation / Depopulation argument....when we find no Warming but Global Cooling.,,:)

Would Populationist Yeppers!!! I coined a word :)] then have a credibility issue? :D:D


#10

This is a complete misrepresentation of this passage because you assume it has one meaning and you are not looking at the book of Genesis from the perspective of a person alive during that time. Ask and Jewish biblical scholar and they will tell you that they loved ambiguity.
Passages incompass multiple meanings all at the same time for example the passage in Genesis that says “and the two became one flesh”. There are three different meanings to this passage. The word for flesh in Hebrew is “basar” This word can refer to humanity in its weak state in need of others. Thus the first meaning that of a personal unitive relationship that unites the two. Another meaning of the word “basar” is the male sexual organ. Thus the second meaning of the passage refers to the two becoming one flesh during the sexual act. The third meaning of the passage is the obvious one where a man and a woman come together through sexual intercourse and sometimes another person is formed in the likeness of the man and woman. If you asked a Jewish scholar which one of these meanings was correct he would simply reply “yes”. They are all right and it is actually wrong to deny any of these meanings.

In other words your interpretation is correct but so is the more direct interpretation. To say one or the other is correct and the other is incorrect is the only way you can be wrong.


#11

[quote="Nate13, post:10, topic:249448"]
This is a complete misrepresentation of this passage because you assume it has one meaning and you are not looking at the book of Genesis from the perspective of a person alive during that time. Ask and Jewish biblical scholar and they will tell you that they loved ambiguity.

Passages incompass multiple meanings all at the same time for example the passage in Genesis that says "and the two became one flesh". There are three different meanings to this passage. The word for flesh in Hebrew is "basar" This word can refer to humanity in its weak state in need of others. Thus the first meaning that of a personal unitive relationship that unites the two. Another meaning of the word "basar" is the male sexual organ. Thus the second meaning of the passage refers to the two becoming one flesh during the sexual act. The third meaning of the passage is the obvious one where a man and a woman come together through sexual intercourse and sometimes another person is formed in the likeness of the man and woman. If you asked a Jewish scholar which one of these meanings was correct he would simply reply "yes". They are all right and it is actually wrong to deny any of these meanings.

In other words your interpretation is correct but so is the more direct interpretation. To say one or the other is correct and the other is incorrect is the only way you can be wrong.

[/quote]

The interpretation that is most critical to our times is similar to the one I have given and arguably the only one that has really ever made sense.

It is abundantly clear today that we cannot continue to "multiply" the global population and live up to the directive in Genesis to subdue AND replenish the earth. We are consuming and polluting the earth and have failed by many measures to be good stewards for its creatures. Whether by our actions or by acts of nature it is time to replenish and be held accountable to ALL future life on this planet. Then, and only then, will we have dominion.


#12

I’m not sure what the point of this is. How many people can fit in a certain area is not a relevant measure of whether the earth is overpopulated or not.


#13

one way to evaluate the arguments of overpopulation advocates:
what is their suggested solution to the problem they hypothesize?
if their solutions is in any way connected to elimination of or reducing population of the poor, you know their bias, which is always at its root racism, ethinic cleansing, and genocide. That of course invalidates all their data and all their conclusions because it begins with false premises.


#14

[quote="tskrobacz, post:11, topic:249448"]
The interpretation that is most critical to our times is similar to the one I have given and arguably the only one that has really ever made sense.

It is abundantly clear today that we cannot continue to "multiply" the global population and live up to the directive in Genesis to subdue AND replenish the earth. We are consuming and polluting the earth and have failed by many measures to be good stewards for its creatures. Whether by our actions or by acts of nature it is time to replenish and be held accountable to ALL future life on this planet. Then, and only then, will we have dominion.

[/quote]

]

The Jewish people of the time obviously took it much differently. I guarantee you many would disagree that your interpretation is the one that makes the most sense. And as I stated a person during that time would have rebuked you for being so closed minded. Both meanings have Truth to them and the Jewish people definitely took the literal meaning of it to heart.

Be fruitful - be productive in matters of the spirit allowing the will of God to be achieved in and through your life.
Multiply - Increase in understanding and knowledge
Replenish the earth - sustain the earth for all future generations
Have dominion - be good managers of all the earths creatures

Your idea of "multiply" seems to be stretching quite a bit. Also if the word replenish is a good translation from the original Hebrew that would imply that there is a certain point in which the Earth would be refilled or restocked. Unless you can go back and look at the original Hebrew text I would be wary of making any assumptions about other meanings other than the one that has been held for thousands of years and the one the Jewish people held.


#15

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Ah I see what the problem is now. You selected the translation that fit your story and used the word “replenish” instead of “fill”. It may just be me, but looking up at those maps posted earlier it seems we have a ways to go :wink: “Fill” is much less ambiguous then “replenish” and makes more sense because replenish implies that the Earth was already filled to some level at some point.


#16

This is a major issue of concern, and I think most of you are being rather silly subscribing to some major conspiracy theory. Ridiculous analogies demonstrating fitting the population in some tiny spot to prove how much space there is, is pointless and impractical.

Whilst some countries can sustain a massive population growth for many years to come, this is not the case with other countries. Countries like India and China despite having large land masses still struggly economically even though their economic prosperities are increasing as a whole.

There are finite resources, you cannot just keep reproducing forever because the Bible supposedly says so. There is a time and place for everything, and if there was ever a time and place to use common sense, it would be about now.

You cannot apply a grand general formula to every country in the Earth to go and reproduce, countries are different, cultures are different, their situations are different. For someone living in a remote country side owning vast farmland it would be acceptable and perhaps even necessary to have a large family of over 15, but it would be foolish to do the same thing living in a 2 bedroom apartment in the heart of the city of Sydney.

There is no lie perpetuated, it's not a conspiracy theory. The world is going to face a population crisis unless the issue is addressed firmly and some strategy is put in place to regulate unprecedented rates of growth in certain areas. To achieve this, it starts with some basic education in common sense.


#17

Regulate growth? Do you mean force contraceptives on people, as China does, with it’s one child policy?

Do you understand that many nations and regions are severely UNDER populated to the point where the death rate is equal to or higher than the birth rate? That is a recipe for extinction!

Problems of distribution of resources cause a lot more deaths than lack of resources - corrupt heads of state and warring tribes that prevent people from getting aid or even food from their own land.

Finite resources? No, food grows and then grows again. We have better production of food than we ever have, and better methods of preservation. I believe I have seen reports that the USA alone could feed the world if we could only get it to the people who need it such as those in Somalia or North Korea.

So what countries have your approval to reproduce? Europe? What nation in Africa should be allowed to reproduce? What about India? What about China? Who decides which country’s occupants can reproduce?

This is despicable from someone who claims to be a Catholic.


#18

Wow, what a strawman. Continuously ask me questions and then answer them for me too :rolleyes: then bring the typical "despicable coming from a Catholic" comment. If you don't know how to form arguments and can't prevent yourself from committing fallacies, refrain from engaging in debates so you don't look silly.

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:17, topic:249448"]
Regulate growth? Do you mean force contraceptives on people, as China does, with it's one child policy?

[/quote]

No I didn't state that people should be forced to do any such thing, I did however state to educate people perhaps some people need graphical illustrations as part of the education process of what happens when you have finite resources and a growing population ad infinitum.:rolleyes:

Do you understand that many nations and regions are severely UNDER populated to the point where the death rate is equal to or higher than the birth rate? That is a recipe for extinction!

If anyone has trouble understanding, it would be you. I clearly stated one grand general formula is not applicable to everything and everyone, therefore it would be clear that the nations who needs a good population growth would not fall under the growth regulating model. So yes, I understand that there are nations and regions whereby their population should sustain excellent growth for a long time to come.

Last time I checked, our net population growth was on the increase, therefore to become extinct we would need something besides depopulation to make us extinct, let's not get carried away. Extinction indeed :rolleyes: - where do you live, in the sparsely populated rolling hills of Outer Mongolia?

Problems of distribution of resources cause a lot more deaths than lack of resources - corrupt heads of state and warring tribes that prevent people from getting aid or even food from their own land.

Largely irrelevant, and is far too specific. I am not going to go through every factor, nook and cranny of the population debate. Start looking at the bigger picture.

Finite resources? No, food grows and then grows again. We have better production of food than we ever have, and better methods of preservation. I believe I have seen reports that the USA alone could feed the world if we could only get it to the people who need it such as those in Somalia or North Korea.

Someone obviously never did economics, yes finite resources. What were you thinking, that the world's resources were infinite? :rotfl: - for pete's sake, there needs to be some major re-education done. Food is not the only resource in the world therefore you are incorrect in interpreting "resources" as "food", so when I said resources, I meant the whole lot, and not just one thing. Like I said before, start looking at the bigger picture and stop cherry-picking. Things like fossil fuels are finite resources, land is a finite resource, and whilst we can indeed have renewable sources of energy, there are other factors to consider such as production, to produce things we need raw materials, certain raw materials cannot be renewed, these are finite and over time supplies decrease. In other words, what we have is finite, it does not last forever. As for your food example, that too is finite, there is no infinite food production technique, it's mathematically finite. We can continuously grow more food, but for a larger population this will require more resources, whether it be land or new technologies. There is always a limiting behaviour applicable to these kinds of things.

So what countries have your approval to reproduce? Europe? What nation in Africa should be allowed to reproduce? What about India? What about China? Who decides which country's occupants can reproduce?

I do not intend to answer such a thing, that's far too specific, and this is in line with what I've been saying from the beginning. Such an answer would require a deep and detailed analysis beyond the scope of my understanding, expertise or even the ability of one person.

This is despicable from someone who claims to be a Catholic.

Yea likewise, heck, stay away from debates, people might think Catholics aren't able to form arguments without spewing red herrings everywhere.


#19

[quote="Harmony1988, post:18, topic:249448"]

I do not intend to answer such a thing, that's far too specific, and this is in line with what I've been saying from the beginning. Such an answer would require a deep and detailed analysis beyond the scope of my understanding, expertise or even the ability of one person.

.

[/quote]

Then why bring it up? It's a natural question with the direction your statements went in. How will this be decided and who decides? The UN? The head of the EU? Some agency or individual or group of human beings would have to make those decisions. Who is qualified?


#20

Actually, nobody has to decide. Eventually nature will decide for us. Population will decrease naturally when resources run out. I believe it is better to use the intelligence that God gave us wisely, rather than not getting out of the way of the train when we see it coming down the tracks.

Interesting that you brought up China. China was a country that aggressively pursued population growth. In fact, mothers with 10 or more children were held in high esteem. Within a generation, they dramatically reversed course. During that time, they also went from self sufficiency to aggressively pursuing basic resources elsewhere…a very dramatic move for a country that has been historically isolated by their own wish.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.