George Bush

[the protector]

Kudos to those of you who have expanded your world views. I may not agree with you on everything, but I do appreciate the fact that you haven't turned your head away from the atrocities of the current administration. It is clear that many of your fellow forum members have.

At the present, I grudgingly support the right to an abortion. It is mostly due toa population crisis that will gain momentum in the coming years. I don't live in a fantasy world with endless natural resources. That being said, I do agree that you can't just throw contraceptives and perform frivolous abortions to solve the population problem. Studies show that increased economic equality for women do wonders to curb population growth.

The current world population lies somewhere around 6 billion. The earth's carrying capacity is measured by some at around 2 billion. Planet earth is in overshoot. We've been able to sustain this bloated population due to cheap energy from oil.

A lack of cheap energy is another crisis waiting in the wings. It may much sooner than you think. However, the impending economic collapse has the potential to extend this peak through demand destruction. Maybe that we shock us into living simpler lives and consuming less resources.

If the average child per woman were 1.5, we could reach the goal of 2 billion within 100 years. Unfortunately, we haven shown little to no desire to mediate our growth. In that case, nature will correct the problem, which won't exactly be peaches and cream.

[qfnol31]

Hmm, you're definately not from the U.K.

So why not practice NFP? I'm not worried about overpopulation.

[the protector]

[quote]So why not practice NFP? I'm not worried about overpopulation. [/quote]I'd definately prefer that. I hear it is more effective, as well.

Not worried about overpopulation? You really should be. Think of Mother Nature aborting 4-5 billion of her children. It's called a die-off. The world's population will decrease to a more sustainable level whether we tackle the crisis or not. It can be a slow process, like centuries. However, it can also be a short process, like several decades. The current political and enviromental conditions definately make that shorter, more unpleasant die-off a possibility.

Check out this thread from the peakoil.con forums. I think it best explains the relationship b/t the population and energy crises.

[url="http://peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html"]Leibig's Law; Why there will be a die-off?[/url]

Edited December 13, 2004 by the protector

[qfnol31]

Do you know anything about Thomas Malthus or his idea about this?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Dont mean St. peter?

Anyways its just a belief about the Law of God in mans heart, no real factual evidence. [/quote]

NoI mean St. Paul he's the one that said it. And I would argue that it is a fact, that it is provablethat All men have a natural understanding of Right and Wrong and that it takes a disordering of Nature to confuse or suppress that Natural knowledge.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='the protector' date='Dec 13 2004, 03:42 AM'] Not worried about overpopulation? You really should be. Think of Mother Nature aborting 4-5 billion of her children. It's called a die-off. The world's population will decrease to a more sustainable level whether we tackle the crisis or not. It can be a slow process, like centuries. However, it can also be a short process, like several decades. The current political and enviromental conditions definately make that shorter, more unpleasant die-off a possibility.

Check out this thread from the peakoil.con forums. I think it best explains the relationship b/t the population and energy crises.

[url="http://peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html"]Leibig's Law; Why there will be a die-off?[/url] [/quote]
50 years ago the earth could support 60 billion people using existing farmland. Today, technology has improved, we can support even more people. There's not really a population crisis, there's just a lot of people that are using food as a political tool to control those under them.

according to modern economics: people, on average, increase the per capita production of the world. Granted, each person only increases things by a tiny fraction of a percent, but a tiny fraction is still a net increase.

I suspect that by the time the earth *does* start to become overpopulated we'll be able to use off-planet farming. We've got a long time before we have to worry about that though. It'll take at least 5 generations, prolly closer to 20.

Peace,
Joe

[hyperdulia again]

Don you don't think the fall has clouded our ability t discern right from wrong at all.

BTW, I have said on ths forum before that women who have had repeated abortions would after abortion was made illegal definitely constitute a threat to society and that the death penalty might very well be used without violating Church Teaching.

[Don John of Austria]

hyper not really not if we make the attemp to discern, it is our own desires which cloud the judgement, not our lack of understanding.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 13 2004, 10:54 AM']
NoI mean St. Paul he's the one that said it. And I would argue that it is a fact, that it is provablethat All men have a natural understanding of Right and Wrong and that it takes a disordering of Nature to confuse or suppress that Natural knowledge. [/quote]
Nope. For example, Christians see suicide as a sin. Shinto's, Certain Zen Buddhists see it as a duty. There is nothing to say that your moral basis is any superior than their moral basis. Its all a matter of belief.

[Don John of Austria]

Welll their is something to say that my moral basis is superior to their moral basis, but I will have to adressthat tomorrow as the hour is late.

[Socrates]

[quote name='the protector' date='Dec 13 2004, 03:25 AM'] Kudos to those of you who have expanded your world views. I may not agree with you on everything, but I do appreciate the fact that you haven't turned your head away from the atrocities of the current administration. It is clear that many of your fellow forum members have.

At the present, I grudgingly support the right to an abortion. It is mostly due toa population crisis that will gain momentum in the coming years. I don't live in a fantasy world with endless natural resources. That being said, I do agree that you can't just throw contraceptives and perform frivolous abortions to solve the population problem. Studies show that increased economic equality for women do wonders to curb population growth.

The current world population lies somewhere around 6 billion. The earth's carrying capacity is measured by some at around 2 billion. Planet earth is in overshoot. We've been able to sustain this bloated population due to cheap energy from oil.

A lack of cheap energy is another crisis waiting in the wings. It may much sooner than you think. However, the impending economic collapse has the potential to extend this peak through demand destruction. Maybe that we shock us into living simpler lives and consuming less resources.

If the average child per woman were 1.5, we could reach the goal of 2 billion within 100 years. Unfortunately, we haven shown little to no desire to mediate our growth. In that case, nature will correct the problem, which won't exactly be peaches and cream. [/quote]
The whole population issue is dealt with at greater length in another thread. The world will not become overpopulated. In fact, with great decreases in fertility rates (number of children per woman) in much of the world, the population will likely begin decreasing within this century! (Even the pro-population-control U.N.'s latest population report concedes this.) There is evidence that the decrease will come sooner and be steeper than the U.N. predicts. It has already begun in Europe.

And if abortion is necessary to save the planet, why not just legalize murder to help "save the earth"?

(I've always found it odd that none of these environmental extremists who keep howling about human population have voluntarily commited suicide "for the planet's sake." In fact, many of them do not even make sacrifices in lifestyle to use less resources.)

[Don John of Austria]

I would like to make a proposal, I thinke should simply execute all the upper middle class people in the united states say those who make more than about 75,000 dollars a year gross but under about 250,000, that will free up a huge amount of resources for other things, likethe poor of the world, they are the ones using most of the resources after all , but are not offering the return of the truely wealthy who create jobs and such.

What do ya'll think?

Edited December 14, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Socrates]

Ah, class warfare lives!

[DancesforLove]

Yes we sided with the Church even though he went against the Popes wishes.

Although I am a religious person and I OF COURSE follow the Church and respect the Pope I do disagree about the war, I think it was needed even though war is a terrible thing it was needed.

[Mary's Knight, La]

Don, I really dislike your idea for well selfish reasons as that class is my goal.

As was mentioned earlier over population is a myth, read the facts the world is on it's way to dropping below equilibrium.

[Don John of Austria]

Ah come'on I mean it would solve all those nasty " resource problems" and we could save the world and all it would takeiss killing few million yuppies.

[Guest godslittlelamb]

edited out this isn't the board for me.

Edited December 15, 2004 by godslittlelamb

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Dec 14 2004, 09:52 PM'] Yes we sided with the Church even though he went against the Popes wishes.

Although I am a religious person and I OF COURSE follow the Church and respect the Pope I do disagree about the war, I think it was needed even though war is a terrible thing it was needed. [/quote]
Then ur an American Catholic, not a Catholic American, also get a documentary called 'Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War' www.truthuncovered.com has a transcript. The whole war was a lie, nothing but oil, corp. contracts and defence contracts.

[Guest Aluigi]

Not according to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who told the WHOLE CHURCH that any Catholic may disagree with the Pope on the matter of a specific application of either war or the death penalty.

phatmasser777 swings, phatmasser777 misses.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 16 2004, 07:16 PM'] Not according to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who told the WHOLE CHURCH that any Catholic may disagree with the Pope on the matter of a specific application of either war or the death penalty.

phatmasser777 swings, phatmasser777 misses. [/quote]
War is a morality issue, an ethical issue. The Pope PUBLICLY stated his beliefs on it, doesnt that make it binding on all catholics? and even if its not, are you a supermarket catholic? Oh the popes says this, but I want this, oh the pope says this, but my President says that.

Republican Catholics are AMERICANS then CATHOLIC.