Climate change and the Pope

[BashfulAnthony]

But it's people like you that say, oh, don't complain about our privileges because we are loving and those are the horrible people, and nothing to do with us, even if you get them as a job lot with us. Just ignore the fact that you grow up in a sectarian society because two sets of us who have some incredibly inconsequential disagreement about works or acts, we aren't really sure ourselves, but we think it is fine to bomb things for. Forget about the whole two towers thing, as that is just the lunatics and we aren't really providing them with justification in telling you not to mention them or argue against religion because we find it a bit tedious. After all there are lots of horrible things going on, and if some of them are being justified by religion and generally asking for a pass on the logic thing, it's nothing to do with me, those are chartered religion people not certified like me, I'm the good kind and so you shouldn't worry if some of us get special seats in your legislature to tout a bit of unreasoning discrimination against gay people because you lot just want to stop us having the freedom to act as if we have some God given right to do that.

That little rant in which you claim, "people like you," is totally alien to what I think.  Please don't assume what I think without any justification whatsoever.  Your comments are spurious.

[Nearly Sane]

But it's people like you that say, oh, don't complain about our privileges because we are loving and those are the horrible people, and nothing to do with us, even if you get them as a job lot with us. Just ignore the fact that you grow up in a sectarian society because two sets of us who have some incredibly inconsequential disagreement about works or acts, we aren't really sure ourselves, but we think it is fine to bomb things for. Forget about the whole two towers thing, as that is just the lunatics and we aren't really providing them with justification in telling you not to mention them or argue against religion because we find it a bit tedious. After all there are lots of horrible things going on, and if some of them are being justified by religion and generally asking for a pass on the logic thing, it's nothing to do with me, those are chartered religion people not certified like me, I'm the good kind and so you shouldn't worry if some of us get special seats in your legislature to tout a bit of unreasoning discrimination against gay people because you lot just want to stop us having the freedom to act as if we have some God given right to do that.

That little rant in which you claim, "people like you," is totally alien to what I think.  Please don't assume what I think without any justification whatsoever.  Your comments are spurious.

You've just done exactly that in the comment, so not only not spurious but justified by that.

And as for your use that my earlier rant doesn't apply to posters on here, what about those posters who support discriminating against gay people? What about those who have doubts about evolution? What about those who think that their god was right to drown children?

[Gonnagle]

Where is old Bluehillside,

Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.

His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population  will level off at about 10 billion.

His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.

Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.

Gonnagle.

[Udayana]

Where is old Bluehillside,

Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.

His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population  will level off at about 10 billion.

His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.

Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.

Gonnagle.

I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where is old Bluehillside,

Anyway, on the subject of population growth, Blue gave us a link about this Norwegian bloke on Ted Talk who was upbeat about the state of the world.

His forte was using statistics to predict future outcomes, apparently the worlds population  will level off at about 10 billion.

His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.

Although if I remember correctly the guy did hint at more wars over basics like water and land to grow crops.

Gonnagle.

I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.

But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.

[ProfessorDavey]

His answer to population growth is education, when a person is educated and helped to drag themselves out of poverty, when they have the tools to combat child mortality then population growth will slow.

But you need a shared consensus on what is desirable.

When you have got a major religion (that claims about 2 billion adherents) that in its recent encyclical totally dismissed population growth as being important in relation to climate change, and also is actively promoting increasing the birth rate rather than decreasing the birth rate, then you have a big problem.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

A shared consensus, well I am not a big fan of the RCC but as far as I am aware they are a major player in combating the basics of what ails this world, poverty and hunger.

Instead of belittling Pope Francis attempts to help, maybe the world should have a think about how we can help him.

Of course that would mean kicking prejudices about religion into touch.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

[Udayana]

...
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.

But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.

I think the consensus is that we could handle that size of population (9-10b) given good management and distribution of resources, with careful control of emissions. Certainly we could not support such a population with a level of consumption and waste similar to what we currently have in the USA/Europe.

I agree that we should support birth control and limiting the population, but the effect of population on global warming is complicated and not really the primary issue. 

[floo]

...
I think you mean Hans Rosling (?). His conclusions seemed great, based on the situation even a few years ago that, to all extents and purposes worldwide, births were slowing to replacement level only, and the actual population increase was due to people living longer. This was expected to lead to a stable population between 9 and 10 billion. However since then we have seen birth rates increase again. I think this is basically due to less equality, education and more wars and poverty. These all exacerbate global warming, which in turn boosts these factors in an ever downwards spiral.

But even if the global population were to stabilise at around 10 billion that would still represent an increase of over 35% on the current population.

I think the consensus is that we could handle that size of population (9-10b) given good management and distribution of resources, with careful control of emissions. Certainly we could not support such a population with a level of consumption and waste similar to what we currently have in the USA/Europe.

I agree that we should support birth control and limiting the population, but the effect of population on global warming is complicated and not really the primary issue.

I agree global warming is a serious issue, which is ignored at our peril. However, as people will probably have to move in the future from areas of greatest risk, it is necessary to ensure the world's population doesn't get out of control.

[Harrowby Hall]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

As I understand it, the RCC position on birth control comes from Thomas Aquinas' consideration of the Natural Law of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that the primary purpose of sexual intercourse in human beings is reproduction.

It may well be that while the primary biological purpose of sex is reproduction, sex has a more important survival role - that of strengthening the bond between couples. Since human offspring take a very long time to mature, a strong bond between the parents offers the possibility of continued protection during maturation. It could also be argued that reduced fertility (in the form of fewer children) also provides greater protection to existing children making it more likely that they will achieve maturity.

I think that by recognising that its view on birth control comes not from any biblical source but from ancient Greek philosophy, the RCC might find it relatively easy to change its stance. Most adherents in first world countries appear to ignore RCC teaching on this matter anyway.

[BashfulAnthony]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

[Shaker]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.

[BashfulAnthony]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.

Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.  What's the difference?  The result is the same.  Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years:  population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?   

“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."

[Shaker]

Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.

That's an answer to somebody else's question perhaps, but not the one I asked.

[BashfulAnthony]

Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.

That's an answer to somebody else's question perhaps, but not the one I asked.

No, but I was just highlighting the usual slant against Christianity, which is so blatantly biased.  I am simply stating that  extreme population growth, and I am not apologising for Catholic dogma, far from it, is down to other sources, in the main.  Fair's fair.

[floo]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.

Nor can I.

[ProfessorDavey]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.

Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.  What's the difference?  The result is the same.  Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years:  population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?   

“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."

Give that the OP was about the Pope and climate change it isn't unreasonable that the focus is on the RCC.

That said you are right that other religions too actively encourage population growth and any body (religious or otherwise) which does this is being grossly irresponsible.

On India, you are pretty wide of the mark. Sure because India has a big population the increase in absolute numbers is high, but the percentage increase isn't remarkable in terms of relative growth rates. If you rank countries by growth rate India sits very middling, at around 100 out of about 200.

[Sriram]

The RCC should encourage its faithful to use birth control, the world is overpopulated.

What about other religions?  What about governments?  Always the Christians who come in for the criticism.

Do you know of any other religion or denomination within a religion or government which expressly forbids the use of artificial contraception? I can't think of one.

Islam actively encourages large families, and with considerable success.  What's the difference?  The result is the same.  Why doesn't the Indian Government, for example, do more to cut back what has been a population explosion in recent years:  population up by almost 190 million in the last decade or so?   

“The population of India is 1.21 billion showing an increase of 181.96 million persons during the decade 2001-2011. During the past decade, population of India grew by 17.7%."

About India population, its true that the population has grown enormously in the past six decades.  But its not for want of trying by the Govt. to control the population.

The Family Planning Program was initiated in the 1960's urging people to have only one or two children. PM Indira Gandhi even attempted a compulsory sterilization program in the 1970's but was opposed and it didn't work.  Condoms were distributed free in many villages.

The problem was that we are a democracy and could not force many people (unlike China) to undertake family planning measures.  Due to the lack of education and  poor economic conditions of the majority ....such programs were not very successful.

In South India the fertility rate (1.8 -2) has now fallen to less than the replacement rate (2.1). In North India it is still quite high (more than 3).  It is however coming down rapidly as education spreads and people become more confident and secure.

[Udayana]

...
The problem was that we are a democracy and could not force many people (unlike China) to undertake family planning measures.  Due to the lack of education and  poor economic conditions of the majority ....such programs were not very successful.

In South India the fertility rate (1.8 -2) has now fallen to less than the replacement rate (2.1). In North India it is still quite high (more than 3).  It is however coming down rapidly as education spreads and people become more confident and secure.

ha! .. democracy was never the problem. The problems are the lack of education and poverty. Government after government have failed to deliver the education they committed to; Kerala is the only state to persist with their efforts over the decades. Poverty persists due to corruption.

Anyway, despite this there has been progress ... especially in the cities - ie due to social and economic progress (- rather than mass sterilizations). Unfortunately these smaller, richer, families aspire to consume at the level of US/European families: owning cars, AC, meat eating and so on ... not good re global warming.