Population Control

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317104382' post='2310818']
That wasn't what I wrote... [/quote]

Yes . . . it's what I wrote.
You seem frustrated by what I have to say, and if you are, I don't know why. I'm looking for real answers, keeping an open-mind, and stating my biases and beliefs upfront so other people can see, and how I recognize, that my own worldview colors my opinion towards this. I actually appreciated your first post, thought it had a lot of good points, and was pretty balanced and non-sensationalized.
[quote]But this idea that we need to go out with machine guns to thin out the poor, start forcefully sterilizing the undesirable, or even start imposing abortions forcefully is ludicrous. The United States does technically have population control policies already in place, it's voluntary and working just fine.


[/quote]

What does this have to do with anything? I'm confused. Who said gunning down poor people in the name of overpopulation is likely to happen?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317164021' post='2311207']

Yes . . . it's what I wrote.
You seem frustrated by what I have to say, and if you are, I don't know why. I'm looking for real answers, keeping an open-mind, and stating my biases and beliefs upfront so other people can see, and how I recognize, that my own worldview colors my opinion towards this. I actually appreciated your first post, thought it had a lot of good points, and was pretty balanced and non-sensationalized.


What does this have to do with anything? I'm confused. Who said gunning down poor people in the name of overpopulation is likely to happen?
[/quote]
Feed not the troll.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317164021' post='2311207']Yes . . . it's what I wrote.[/quote]So... you missed the point... and decided... Okay. Whenever people don't actually address what I write, I am just going to troll them for good measure.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317164021' post='2311207']You seem frustrated by what I have to say, and if you are, I don't know why. I'm looking for real answers, keeping an open-mind, and stating my biases and beliefs upfront so other people can see, and how I recognize, that my own worldview colors my opinion towards this. I actually appreciated your first post, thought it had a lot of good points, and was pretty balanced and non-sensationalized.[/quote]Frustrated at this:
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317164021' post='2311207']I think that putting comfort first is a a pretty serious philosophical flaw of the modern world.[/quote]I didn't say put comfort first... So I assumed this was either a misrepresentation or a reaffirmation of your own position. So I replied playfully:
[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317101553' post='2310805']So you would rather be uncomfortable. Noted.[/quote]I don't think anyone would rather be uncomfortable, it can be done, but it's not something that people usually look for. But...
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317103003' post='2310812']I would rather live morally than comfortable yes, although often time I do not rise to this standard. THe appropriate amount of self-loathing is thusly administered.[/quote]So you again reply with this implication that comfort and morality are somehow incompatible. Which becomes just odd to me, because it seems almost like you are almost saying to support a comfortable environment for humans is tantamount to being amoral. Coupled with this:
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317100084' post='2310801']I disagree with the idea of overpopulation philosophically so much so that I'm willing to eagerly jump on board into any scientific theory that affirms this...[/quote]I came to the conclusion this is more of a "[i]overpopulation, isn't that like global warming, another hoax liberals made to make us conservatives feel bad[/i]" topic. So I replied, not necessarily all at you. So yes, some frustration, that people like Socrates and others exist purely to troll scientific findings with their ideological convictions.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317164021' post='2311207']What does this have to do with anything? I'm confused. Who said gunning down poor people in the name of overpopulation is likely to happen?[/quote]I didn't say anyone did. I was making the point that population control policies are not malevolent forces. It can be completely peaceful and voluntarily, and generally already taken care of. This also addresses your question of what can be done about this problem.
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317164786' post='2311212']Feed not the troll.[/quote]The troll master has spoken!

Edited September 27, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317100084' post='2310801']
As I said to Papist, this may very well be a [i]result[/i] of increased contraceptive use, and it most likely is. I seriously doubt it's that people are having less sex or that fecundity has naturally declined.

So while all of your data that indicates a leveling out of population is appreciated, it's useless in aiding the scientific validity of Catholic moral teaching. It's basically saying thank goodness we ignored the church's teaching on contraception or we'd have quite a mess on our hands.

The data I would really appreciate is whether or not human population [i]can[/i] exceed or is exceeding to a point that the environment cannot support human life. All I'm getting is data that population is leveling out, but if you can't separate that from the effects of contraception it's not very helpful to me.[/quote]
My point is that there's not the horrible population crisis that the "population control" crowd makes it out to be.

Catholic morality does not require that every person have 20 kids either. That's a straw-man fallacy. There are moral means of not having children, even if they be less convenient than artificial contraception/abortion. Many centuries ago, a saint even recommended more people becoming monks and nuns to avoid overpopulation (apparently, such fears existed even in the early middle ages!)


[quote]Are you saying that exploitation of third world resources via major corporations and rich governments (that very often provide us disproportionate comforts and luxuries) is not stealing? Or that it's not exploitation?


I really hope not. Are you saying, "yes there is exploitation of resources by corrupt governments and less governmental/corporational interference will help solve the problem"? That is something I don't necessarily disagree with. But if you think the USA controlling a quarter of the world's resources is ok . . . I really think that's a terrible condition to take. I'm not accusing you of that, but only asking for clarification.[/quote]
You've thrown around a lot of politically-charged buzzwords there, but have provided little in the way of facts or logic.

Prosperity is best guaranteed by countries having free economic systems (as the linked video demonstrates).

Stealing means forcibly taking away wealth or goods from another against that person's (or people's will). It's different than the free exchange of goods, services, and money.

While inequalities and severe poverty remain, in the poorer countries, the fact is that overall, free trade with developed countries, and access to their technologies and the free market system has overall resulted in an increase in wealth and material well being for people in most poor countries. No, there's still inequality, and a lot of catching up to do, but material standards of living are improving for many people in poorer countries. India, China, and much of Africa are seeing a rapidly growing middle class, in which more and more people are able to afford luxuries - such as cars - which they previously were not. And that is largely from trade with "evil" Western corporations. As wealth increases, conditions improve for people in those countries, some of which are rapidly catching up with the developed West. That hardly looks like "stealing" to me.

No, things are not perfect, and there have been (and are) examples of genuine exploitation (for instance, by corporations taking advantage of low environmental or labor standards in host countries), but things are getting better in these areas as corporations have been hurt by the negative publicity generated by such things, and have made efforts to improve. As wealth increases in third world nations, labor and environmental standards can improve too. The fact remains, though, that trade with the West has overall significantly increased, rather than decreased, the wealth and well-being of people in poor countries.

Wealth is something actively created by people, rather than a static pie which must be split up and divided by government bureaucrats.

[quote]I'll watch that vid when I get the chance.[/quote]
Please do. It might help answer some of your questions.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1317121649' post='2310892']
You're are assuming that the assertion that there is an overpopulation problem is correct. That's the point. There was/is not a overpopulation problem. And many countries are reaping the fruits of the population control initiatives. Russia for example, A Russian region of Ulyanovsk noticed the nation's birth-rate crisis: It has declared Sept. 12 the Day of Conception and for the third year running is giving couples time off from work to procreate. The hope is for a bunch of babies exactly nine months later on Russia's national day. Couples who "give birth to a patriot" during the June 12 festivities win money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes. Ulyanovsk, about 550 miles east of Moscow, has held similar contests since 2005. Since then, the number of competitors, and the number of babies born to them, has been on the rise. Russia, with one-seventh of Earth's land surface, has just 141.4 million citizens, making it one of the most sparsely settled countries in the world. With a low birth rate and a high death rate, the population has been shrinking since the early 1990s. In his state-of-the-nation address in 2006, President Vladimir Putin called the demographic crisis the most acute problem facing Russia and announced a broad effort to boost Russia's birth rate, including cash incentives to families that have more than one child. Ulyanovsk Gov. Sergei Morozov has added an element of fun to the national campaign. The 2007 grand prize went to Irina and Andrei Kartuzov, who received a UAZ-Patriot, a sport utility vehicle. Other contestants won video cameras, TVs, refrigerators and washing machines.
[/quote]

How and where am I assuming the overpopulation thesis is correct? I specifically wanted to to talk about the moral implications we [i]would[/i] have to face [i]should[/i] there arises too many humans for the Earth to sustain itself because we live on a finite planet and it's some thing that theoretically [i]could[/i] happen whether or not you or anyone believes is likely.

You and others are telling me that "the fruit of contraception is a tiny workforce that can't support older generations" along with a myriad of other problems caused by contraception that [b]I already agree with[/b] and believe it or not [b]is actually addressed[/b]in the liberal institution I attend. So people do see this particular problem, but weighing it out it still seems that it's a lot better than "having too many people." Of course you and I disagree with such people, fine. This is one of the many good counterpoints to the idea that we should contracept future generations in the name of overpopulation.

But you see, what you and Soc were saying is "overpopulation is a myth. The numbers show that fertility is declining and population will level out." The numbers may very well show that to be the case, but when we ask [i]why[/i] is fertility declining, I believe the evidence (which I cannot demonstrate at this point, so don't take my word for it, but kindly provide me with other theses if you have any) says "fertility is declining because of widespread contraception distribution and education." Why else would human populations have just stopped growing exponentially all of the sudden? Here's a chart that shows it http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Population_curve.svg

"population numbers are leveling out"
"That's most likely because of birth control measures"
"BUT LOOK AT ALL THE BAD poo CONTRACEPTION DOES"

It's not that I disagree with the last part, but it doesn't follow. Just because contraception is a shiitake mushroom idea philosophically and theologically, and even terrible on some practical levels, doesn't mean contraception is not responsible for this decline in fertility. You can't say that those damned liberals(sense of humor here) are crying wolf [i]because[/i] the numbers show population is not spiraling out of control, when you actively oppose the efforts (primarily contraception and sometimes abortion) that have kept the human population from exponential growth.

In short
To offer a sound argument that overpopulation is [i]not[/i] a problem both environmentally (which most of you aren't focusing on at all) as well as economically [i]because[/i] the numbers show a decline AND that birth control is [i]not[/i] the cause of this leveling off, most evidence and theories are needed.

Which is why I wanted to discuss the moral implications of this theory IF for the sake of the discussion all numbers do indicate that we are growing exponentially and will soon run out of space, and how despite this, contraception, abortion, and other immoral means of keeping the numbers down is not acceptable.

Unfortunately no one is really doing that. They are showing me some evidence that says contraception is bad, but that's tangential. People are using evidence (the leveling of population) when it helps their theory but disregard it when it doesn't. I have faith that moral theology of the everlasting wisdom of the Church is sufficient in grappling with these predicaments, but all I'm seeing is a lot of side-stepping and fear. I have fears too. I fear a lot about the direction modern society is heading to. It's ok to be a little fearful, but I want to maintain honesty when we look at this. "Science" may one day tell us there is no such thing as post-abortion trauma (oops guess they already did), that masturbation can help prevent prostate cancer (I guess they've done that too), and that mass suicide would greatly help the planet recover from man's abuse. The appropriate response is not to coerce the data into a corner until it fits our worldview, but to still declare these things as wrong despite the numbers. Morality is not a science, and while it's great and helpful when scientific studies affirm revealed truth, it's a human system and therefore has flaws.

Am I making ANY sense here? I believe contraception is wrong. I believe the attitude behind the idea of overpopulation is usually fraught with elitist and misanthropic undertones, what I'm having trouble with is reconciling these beliefs with the possibility of detrimental effects via exponential human population growth. If someone could demonstrate how Catholic sexual teaching, applied across the board, would keep the planet in a natural balance (a hard and perhaps impossible task) OR if someone could show REGARDLESS of how numbers might rise here are all the wonderful societal benefits within moral theology that outweigh any possible negative effects. The latter is more philosophical and spiritual and persists despite whatever the data might say about overpopulation.

I'm starting to feel a touch of madness. If someone gets my ramblings please help!

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317165157' post='2311214'] Frustrated at this: I didn't say put comfort first...[/quote]

But I never claimed you said that. I was merely commenting on a pervasive crisis of modern philosophy that you touched upon in your post.

let's be friends

[brandelynmarie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317061382' post='2310500']

Also, the idea that poverty and such in other countries is caused by rich countries "stealing" from poor countries and that these problems will be fixed by more socialistic forced redistribution of wealth is pure garbage. Most poverty in poor countries is caused by bad government systems which prevent wealth from being created. Economic freedom is the best indicator of a nation's prosperity. For instance, Hong Kong has one of the world's densest populations and few natural resources, yet has one of the highest standards of living in the world.
[/quote]

Most poverty is caused by bad government systems, my thought exactly.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317166323' post='2311220'] My point is that there's not the horrible population crisis that the "population control" crowd makes it out to be. Catholic morality does not require that every person have 20 kids either. That's a straw-man fallacy. There are moral means of not having children, even if they be less convenient than artificial contraception/abortion. Many centuries ago, a saint even recommended more people becoming monks and nuns to avoid overpopulation (apparently, such fears existed even in the early middle ages!)
[/quote]

Right not every Catholic family needs 20 children, but I guess the crisis is this: people are gonna have sex no matter what. We can't stop people from having uncontrolled sex but we can just dole out condoms and pills! Catholic teaching on sexual morality is derived from natural law right? So it doesn't need to necessarily appeal to specific doctrine to be understood by any given person? How can we make these ideas more concrete amongst the developed world? It seems like an almost impossible task.

Also, do you think if contraception was done away with, that human population would rise exponentially?

As for consecrated celibacy, it's some something I think we really need to advertise. Everyone thinks you absolutely 100% need sex to exist and be fulfilled and that denying yourself of such pleasures is detrimental. Aren't we past this Freudian bs? I would like to think so. But here you mention something very important: convenience. Convenience seems to rule the day, and is perhaps a symptom and cause of our massive consumption. How do we as Catholics convince people that convenience and comfort are not the most important things in the universe.

[quote]Prosperity is best guaranteed by countries having free economic systems (as the linked video demonstrates). Stealing means forcibly taking away wealth or goods from another against that person's (or people's will). It's different than the free exchange of goods, services, and money. While inequalities and severe poverty remain, in the poorer countries, the fact is that overall, free trade with developed countries, and access to their technologies and the free market system has overall resulted in an increase in wealth and material well being for people in most poor countries. No, there's still inequality, and a lot of catching up to do, but material standards of living are improving for many people in poorer countries. India, China, and much of Africa are seeing a rapidly growing middle class, in which more and more people are able to afford luxuries - such as cars - which they previously were not. And that is largely from trade with "evil" Western corporations. As wealth increases, conditions improve for people in those countries, some of which are rapidly catching up with the developed West. That hardly looks like "stealing" to me. No, things are not perfect, and there have been (and are) examples of genuine exploitation (for instance, by corporations taking advantage of low environmental or labor standards in host countries), but things are getting better in these areas as corporations have been hurt by the negative publicity generated by such things, and have made efforts to improve. As wealth increases in third world nations, labor and environmental standards can improve too. The fact remains, though, that trade with the West has overall significantly increased, rather than decreased, the wealth and well-being of people in poor countries. Wealth is something actively created by people, rather than a static pie which must be split up and divided by government bureaucrats.[/quote]

I've heard a lot discussed about economics and to be honest its way over my head. So I can agree with you here, but only tentatively until I somehow study this in depth myself (which may never happen). But I generally think that less government intervention is usually the way to go. I have trouble not seeing corporations as giant monoliths of evil though </div>

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ice_nine

[rizz_loves_jesus]

I can't really say much on your first question, and I refuse to get into a debate on overpopulation. But as for your second question, I think necessity breeds innovation--we live in the age of information, and technology is advancing very quickly.

I think the moral answer to overpopulation would definitely not be contraception/abortion (obviously) but to push for more advanced technology that could help us deal with the issue. Things such as genetically engineered plants and livestock that could survive in arid, infertile soil and climates such as that in some third-world countries could greatly provide for the people there. Better medicine could help fight off infectious disease in highly crowded areas. Things like that.

The answer to such a problem would not be a contraceptive mentality--a true solution lies in a greater focus on science and technology.

[mortify]

Is there anyone in the world who straps on a rubber to keep the world population in check?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317168106' post='2311239']
Right not every Catholic family needs 20 children, but I guess the crisis is this: people are gonna have sex no matter what. We can't stop people from having uncontrolled sex but we can just dole out condoms and pills! Catholic teaching on sexual morality is derived from natural law right? So it doesn't need to necessarily appeal to specific doctrine to be understood by any given person? How can we make these ideas more concrete amongst the developed world? It seems like an almost impossible task.

Also, do you think if contraception was done away with, that human population would rise exponentially?

As for consecrated celibacy, it's some something I think we really need to advertise. Everyone thinks you absolutely 100% need sex to exist and be fulfilled and that denying yourself of such pleasures is detrimental. Aren't we past this Freudian bs? I would like to think so. But here you mention something very important: convenience. Convenience seems to rule the day, and is perhaps a symptom and cause of our massive consumption. How do we as Catholics convince people that convenience and comfort are not the most important things in the universe.[/quote]
There's a lot of hypotheticals involved in the first argument. One could just as easily say that if people were to convert en masse to really taking Catholic teaching seriously, vast numbers would join holy orders and religious and live lives of consecrated virginity.

It would be best to first try to convince people of the sacredness and dignity of human life and its procreation before getting bogged down in hypothetical arguments about overpopulation.



[quote]I've heard a lot discussed about economics and to be honest its way over my head. So I can agree with you here, but only tentatively until I somehow study this in depth myself (which may never happen). But I generally think that less government intervention is usually the way to go. I have trouble not seeing corporations as giant monoliths of evil though </div>[/quote]
I'd say they're probably generally no more evil than governments or other bodies of sinful human beings. (The difference being that we are not forced to give money to any one corporation, and a corporation that fails will dissolve - unless, of course, it is artificially bailed out by government.) However, they do make convenient bogeymen to scare people into accepting various increases in government size and power.

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI[/media]

[Laudate_Dominum]

overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1318923202' post='2323081']
overpopolation is a mith. saw a kickass cartoon on youtubes about it. pwned.
[/quote]

sarcasm I get it,

but I do recall that in the past you in a way agreed taht overpopulation could indeed be a problem? Is my memory deceiving me? If not, I'd be interested in what you have to say

[Amppax]

Yesterday, here at Steubenville, there was a talk by the President of the Population Research Institute, Steven Mosher, about the "Myth of Overpopulation." I really hope the speech he gave here wasn't the one he conventionally gave, because he failed to prove a single one of his points.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1317030890' post='2310399'][b]First I'd like to discuss the evidence for the link between population growth and environmental degradation.[/b]

A Cornell professor: if we don't take action to reduce the world to an optimal population (of 2 billion) then "12 billion miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth by the year 2100"[/quote]People have been working out the "optimal population" for the better part of a century, and it's largely based on the carrying capacity of the planet. Then people will come up with projections looking ahead 20 or 50 or 100 years and they'll say "Look at how fast the population is growing, and look at where the carrying capacity is. This is really bad!" What they generally fail to take into consideration, however, is the fact that our planet's carrying capacity is not static. That's going up pretty fast, too. Over the past 50 years, there have been some tremendous advances in agricultural technology that allow farmers to get a lot more out of a given plot of land. So when we look back to the mid-50's, the carrying capacity was estimated (by various people) at anywhere from 7 to 9 billion people, while the global population at that time was around 5 and projected to continue rising quickly. Looking at the present day, we just hit 7 billion but the carrying capacity of planet Earth has risen to somewhere between 11 and 13 billion people.

Now, granted, global resources are not evenly distributed at all. While the planet is producing enough food to feed over 10 billion people, it's not getting around to anywhere near 7 billion people. And the places that suffer the most from this inequity are always, always, always, always, always the ones the have the fastest population growth- partly because they're trying to outpace infant mortality, partly because of cultural values that say having lots of kids is a sign of wealth even if you can't feed them, partly because ways of life have changed in such a way that 15 kids used to have plenty to do in a household but now they don't have anything productive to do. There is a general pattern where a people-group- especially an industrializing people-group- can only sustain that kind of growth for so long before all the misery and suffering on our planet is conspicuously concentrated in those areas where people aren't planning for small families. There's also plenty to be said for the condition of women in these kinds of situations. On so many levels, there's an unmistakable connection between smaller families and positive societal change for women and girls of all ages.

Bottom line- people can't breed like rabbits for the long term, it's just not sustainable for a people-group. On a planet-wide scale, however, we are not on the precipice of catastrophe. But there is some truth to the idea that we'd be closer to the precipice if it weren't for some measure of population control, and we aren't so far away from it that we don't have to keep an eye on it.

[quote]Now for[b] the second thing I want to discuss[/b], I doubt that many of you non-theists will be able to help me,[b] the implications, should overpopulation be a real environmental problem, the moral solutions to this problem, and how to circumvent the shoddy patchwork that modern wisdom offers as a solution: abortion and contraception.[/b][/quote]I'm not ok with abortion, although I realize there won't ever be a nationwide ban- the best we can hope for is a repeal of Roe v. Wade, and even then, the question will be up to each individual state. Even that might not happen within any of our lifetimes. Morally, of course, I continue to be against it.

Contraception, on the other hand, is a different story. It doesn't matter what the CC says, there's nothing morally wrong with it and it can be tremendously useful, especially in parts of the world that have serious problems with STDs and overpopulation. It's an important part of the solution to many of our world's problems, even if most of those problems are not local to America or Western Europe. So that's what we're going to do, and you can either get on board with it or not. That largely depends on where Magisterial authority winds up going with it, and it's only a matter of time before they relax on this one a little bit.

What's that, you don't think it's possible? You think it's insane to believe an ancient, apostolic church with this type of crystal-clear imperative from Catholic Tradition can and probably will....no, it just can't....they've been very clear on where they stand, they couldn't possibly....ok, take a look at your Eastern Orthodox friends. Challenge a few of them on this issue. Ask for explanations from Scripture and from Tradition. Then when PB16 is replaced by someone from the southern hemisphere, you can look back on their explanations with less derision and more familiarity. Unlike the repeal of Roe v. Wade, this is something that probably will happen within our lifetimes. Not to the point where the pope is handing out condoms, of course, but there will be some allowances that you don't think will ever be possible.

[quote]The Earth is a finite area with a finite amount of resources that can only support a finite amount of organisms for a finite amount of time. This we obviously know,[/quote]That's not entirely true. This finite limit has shown a tendency to be very elastic over time. It responds very well to advances in science and agricultural technology. This will prove to be especially true as the most populous part of the world continues to industrialize. There probably will be 11 or 12 billion people on this planet by the year 2100, but its carrying capacity will also increase to at least 15 billion, maybe more.

[quote]But for this second moral/philosophical aspect let's assume for all intents and purposes that we either are overpopulated, or are readily approaching overpopulation, which will shortly after cause a massive dieback because the earth can't support us all. How do we, using moral theology, solve this problem?[/quote]The solution: We increase the planet's carrying capacity faster than the population increases. You might be thinking "Easier said than done," but it's really not. It's kind of normal, and we can do this indefinitely.

[quote]I will admit at first glance I can understand why passing out condoms and birth-control hormones and aborting the "unwanted" seems like the easiest (an on the surface most "humane" way) to cut numbers.[/quote]This grouping makes some sense in your mind, but this set of initiatives doesn't appear in any one place at the same time in reality. Condoms yes, birth-control hormones maybe (although let's be honest, it's too pricey for even the kind-of-poor). But abortion of the "unwanted" isn't ever a part of humanitarian efforts. When people are trying to put together a plan for improving the lives of people in an impoverished country, abortion isn't a part of that.

[quote]Also NFP, I really doubt, could be integrated into impoverished areas because as far as I know that requires somewhat extensive education and medical instruction. Popping a pill or throwing a condom on just seems way easier.[/quote]It's also more effective, both in terms of how well it works and in how it prevents the transmission of STDs. NFP is a relatively ineffective solution for the world's problems. I'll go with what works, thank you, provided that there are no valid moral concerns on the issue. Regarding contraception, there are no valid moral issues. This is where we disagree. If Catholic leadership removed the moral stigma, you would no longer try to push NFP in situations where contraception is a far more effective option. It just works. It's the best option. Moral concerns aside- and there will come a time when your moral concerns are lessened- contraception is often a better option than NFP, especially in the neediest parts of the world.

[quote]If the idea is to leave cultures with their own unique beliefs and all those fluffy sentiments uninfluenced by the wild wild West, then they should not be forcing Africans, Latin Americans, and Asians to assent to the modern glories of abortion and the pursuit of unrestrained sexual pleasure. Ah, there goes the dictatorship of relativism. So they would either help impoverished peoples without the heavy-handed ideology, or leave em alone to suffer and die.[/quote]You're right, you're definitely not an expert. It looks like you're really mad at someone- I'm not sure who, but you're quite angry and frustrated with some type of person. Take heart, though, the majority of your frustration is not reality-based.

[quote]Other questions:

[b]Does the overpopulation theory contain classist implications?[/b]
It's the poorest of the poor that are booming in numbers, is this idea the panic of "oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) we're gonna be outnumbered real soon!" similar to the eugenics movement and the propagation of sterilization and abortions of minority races?[/quote]I assume you're a white person? Assuming you are....I don't know if you're familiar with southeast Asia at all, but Asian people already outnumber everyone. A rapidly growing population is the kind of problem that needs to get solved, but the clamor for a solution does not come from outside such a country. It comes from within.

[quote][b]what are some real moral solutions to reduce overall population?[/b]

and why are these moral solutions overlooked or dismissed as too difficult. Why the resistance, and how to we get around it?[/quote]I would recommend contraception as a huge part of the solution. That can be extremely effective and very helpful. What, are you dismissing it? Why the resistance? How can we get around that?