In 2074 we will be 14 billion souls


#1

https://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html

Do readers think we can sustain 14 billion souls by 2074?
If not should the church look again at planned parenthood?


#2

The Church can’t and won’t change her teaching. We’ll never get to that population… you must know that secular society are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia etc. etc. God will sustain us, better not to worry about it from mankind’s perspective :slight_smile:


#3

The trend today is to go away from anything unnatural and unsustainable. So that would lead me to believe that NFP will become more popular.

Planned parenthood’s day in the sun is all but over. They’ve been exposed as a ghoulish organization that deals in death, deception, dismemberment and attempted genocide.


#4

Every population prediction study I have read has us going down. Worldwide reproduction rates are droppung, not rising. We should be back bellow 7 bill in a couple decades.


#5

If you’re saying planned parenthood, as in ‘planning for parenthood’, the Church already does that. . .NFP.

If you’re saying Planned Parenthood, the organization, you know, the people who provide abortions and contraceptives that are abortifacents, how do you mean, 'look again?" Say, “Oh hey, well, we NEED to have fewer people, so I guess they’re OK after all?”

Not bloody likely.

Why do we ‘need’ fewer people? We could, especially with the technology today whereby we can provide for desalinatization of sea waters, irrigation of deserts, crop rotations, etc., as well as the ability to provide living quarters (everything from yurts to ‘blinis’), support 14 million and more with the resources of the earth–it’s the greed of certain individuals who form despotic governments and keep these from the people which is the problem.


#6

I said planned parenthood, not “Planned Parenthood”

One problem is that in USA the country uses 25% of world resources and would the USA be prepared to say halve that consumption ?


#7

Doubling time

At the present world population growth rate of 1.1% per year (Population Growth), how long will it take to double the world’s population?

The appropriate equation for this case is (4) above, with the following arguments:

t=log(NN0)r=log(21)0.011=63.243 (years)
This equation shows that it will take about 63 years to double the world’s population. If this prediction is borne out, there will be 14 billion people on Earth in 2074 (based on the 2011 population of 7 billion).

taken from
https://arachnoid.com/lutusp/populati.html


#8

Yes, the Earth can sustain 14 billion people, assuming it is utilized well.

No, we will not rethink our position on planned parenthood. They are evil, period. Unless they announce abortion entirely, supporting them will never be morally permissible.


#9

I didn’t say “Planned Parenthood”


#10

You literally said:

If you meant family planning, then you should have said that. Planned Parenthood is a specific entity, whether you capitalize it or not.

Sorry for the confusion, but it’s an understandible mistake.

The Church promotes NFP for spacing births, this is really a non-question. However, if what you’re trying to suggest is that we should actively limit family size in all circumstances, the answers is no. Families are a blessing, and necessary for the proper functioning of society. Limiting the number of children will have a devastating effect on the population, as we are seeing in China.

What’s more, this population fear mongering is nonsense. People have been saying the world won’t be able to sustain the population in a few hundred years literately since the heyday of the Greeks (and probably before).


#11

I’m skeptical of these kind of predictions because there are too many unknown variables. These projections are based on what we know now. Who knows if there will be some super virus, catastrophe, environmental or social change, discovery of new technology or the development of sustainable resources.

In the 1920’s, they predicted we would be living on the moon by now. :roll_eyes:


#12

The UN predicts a population of just 11 billion by 2100.

But can the earth support a lot more people? Probably, technology has really increased in the past and can be expected to increase in the future. No one thought that we could support the current population, and most of the starvation nowadays isn’t due to “overpopulation” but disruptive public policies like in Venezuela.


#13

Why the heck would you say such a thing?

If everyone alive today we’re to pile into on place, we would fit in the State of Texas.


#14

14 Billion? “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth.” Ain’t full yet.


#15

OK, so when you say, “Can we sustain 14 billion souls by 2074”, what kind of resources are you worried about?

You’ve got Malthus in 1798. He thought that “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Scrooge was one of the most famous fictitious Malthusians— “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

You can go back to the 1968 book “The Population Bomb”. Let’s forcibly sterilize the population through the drinking water and spike foreign-aid food with anti-fertility drugs. Let’s put steep taxes on diapers and children. You actually see a lot of his ideas in some of the UN’s population control programs, in some of Bill Gates’ programs, and so on. The West thinks that poor nations are poor because they have too many children.

But in the 200+ years since Malthus, the population explosion alarmists are consistently proven wrong. Do you think there’s better resource distribution than there was in 1798?

In reality, if we run into temporary scarcities, it usually results in an improved substitute. When we run into problems, is it generally more because of a lack of, say, refrigeration, transportation, or government corruption?

We make too much food as it is. We throw away 2 billion tons of food every year. Part of that is because of strict sell-by dates; part of that is because we’re picky and we only eat “pretty” food (if you’ve ever grown food, you know the difference between a “pretty” fruit or vegetable and an “imperfect” fruit or vegetable, which is perfectly edible, but is just irregularly shaped). Part of that is because of infrastructure; part of that is because of storage facilities.


#16

Or are you worried about population density, like the slums of India or Rwanda? What about Belgium? Belgium has 343 people per square mile. What about Taiwan? Taiwan has 1,849 people per square mile. What about Hong Kong? Hong Kong has 6,735 people per square mile. What about Monaco? Monaco has 16,398 people per square mile. I live in Texas… Texas has 106 people per square mile.

As countries become more affluent, their populations naturally shrink. Japan’s population has shrunk by 1 million people in 5 years. A third of its citizens are senior citizens. It’s projected to continue to plummet. But economies are based on continued growth… so when a third, a fourth, or half of your population is senior citizens, it has significant repercussions… you generally want a minimum of four workers for every senior citizen, and that doesn’t even take into account the children of the population.

The only reason why the United States is showing continued population growth is because we have significant numbers of immigrants whose fertility rates are higher than ours.

Between now and 1968, we have better life expectancy, lower infant mortality, improved medical technology, more material possessions, and are better fed. If we can’t maintain our population levels, though, that will have a significant effect upon our quality of life.

But we’d be happy to talk about how Malthus and Ehrlich and everyone else in their intellectual line has been able to write thought-provoking things at the time… but history doesn’t bear out the accuracy of their predictions.


#17

Most studies do not predict we will have the birth rate to support a 1.1% growth but much lower. Look at the birth rates for most developed countries. Many have already fallen below replacement rate.


#18

Erlich 2.0. Ho hum.

Yes.

???

You’ll have to be more specific. The Church has no issue with planning families-- through moral means. The Church, of course, teaches clearly against immoral things including contraception and killing babies through abortion.


#19

If it wishes to survive - absolutely. Since HV, the rolls have taken an unrelenting beating, barring a few places.

Biologists and geologists largely agree that we’ve entered a new epoch in the planet’s history - the Holocene - due to the radical influence of mankind. The Holocene Extinction is presently happening where species are going extinct at a rate roughly 1000 times faster than the background rate. Why?

Too. Many. People. Particularly too many westerners where success is measured by consumption or the potential to consume (wealth).

The Church will adapt or the post-Humane Vitae exodus from the Church will continue in the west - where you can still count a billion Catholics only if you get really, really loose about how you define the word “catholic”.


#20

That’s true. Affluent countries widely promote birth control and the societal desire to have children only after some level of security (read: affluence) is reached.


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.