There Are Too Many People, Right?
by Candice Watters on 07/29/2009 at 3:12 PM
Did influential 19th century British scholar Thomas Malthus really say we'd run out of food? Did he really think we should kill off poor people to make room for the rich? Did he think disease should go untreated?
Yep.
Weren't we supposed to be wiped out by famine by now? Could all the people in the entire world fit in the state of Texas? With a house and a yard?
1. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:30 PM on Jul 29:
Actually I heard that TN (or was it KY, I always get those states confused) could contain the Earth's entire human population.
Don't know if that is true or not....
2. BDB said the following at 3:33 PM on Jul 29:
The problem with putting everyone in Texas is that there's no fresh water for the Western half of the state.
3. Julianne said the following at 3:57 PM on Jul 29:
This made me think of the movie Food Inc. I just saw it last night and the film questions how we can be producing massive amounts of food as a nation, while still having plenty of sick, poor, and unfed people. They explore the answer to be, at least in part, a result of our priorities in food production.
Priorities are a fascinating conundrum, as Malthus seems to assign them quite differently from how we do today; yet we certainly don't have them all in line either. None of us seem to ever be without want for wisdom, that's for sure!
4. Josh M said the following at 4:11 PM on Jul 29:
He wasn't alone, there were enough people over the subsequent years making an outcry about it that the global attitude toward larger families changed. Overpopulation did not become a problem. It seems to me that it would be hard to look back and say with perfect confidence that they were wrong -- had they kept silent, would overpopulation have become a problem? Of course now we've swung the other way and have the problem of not enough people being born.
5. Jim H said the following at 4:11 PM on Jul 29:
It's a really straight forward calculation. Just go to Wikipedia to get the square miles of the state - in the case of Tx: 268,820 sq. miles.
So sq foot/person (in Tx) = 268,820*5280^2/6*10^9 = 1249 sq ft/person.
6. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:12 PM on Jul 29:
BDB (2): And not all of us know Spanish :) so that rules out the Southern part of Texas.
7. David Daniel said the following at 4:14 PM on Jul 29:
How many people would it take for one to consider the Earth overpopulated? How many famines? How many species driven to extinction?
Or can we just keep on going forever?
8. rushncap said the following at 4:15 PM on Jul 29:
Candice -- you may talk about relationships, if you wish. But this is simply, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, ridiculous. Everyone can fit into the state of Texas? Sure. So what? Does that prove ANYTHING? Are you suggesting that it's possible for this planet to have enough people to average 107 square meters (~700,000 square km, 6.5 billion people on the planet) per person? Really??? So, ummmmm... where do you grow food for these people? Where do you grow trees for the wood for their houses? Where do you put cows out to pasture to make milk and cheese and meat? Where do you dispose of their waste? Where do you plant trees to provide clean oxygen and recycle the CO2? Where do you put power stations to provide them with energy, and, for that matter, where do you get the energy from? Where do you put the roads so that they may get around?
Candice, I'm sorry, I understand that it's sometimes hard to crank out post after post, especially when one runs out of ideas. I can sympathize. But that's not a license to post the utterly ridiculous.
If you want a serious discussion about this, that's a good idea. Posting stuff like "well, we'll all fit into Texas" is no more meaningful than me posting "well, we'd all fit into Central Park if you only stack us 116 layers tall (it's true, I just did the calculation).
9. Julie said the following at 4:19 PM on Jul 29:
While people might be physically able to fit in Texas, would there be enough water to drink, land to grow crops to feed everyone, etc? Physical space is one thing, but I think the question is whether increasing numbers of people (or even the people we have) is going to be sustainable. Especially if developing worlds keep developing (adding cars, eating more meat, etc.).
10. Julie said the following at 4:20 PM on Jul 29:
I meant developing countries.
11. brx said the following at 4:42 PM on Jul 29:
Along with BDB, it's not square footage that is the issue; it's resource infrastructure and long-term sustainability that are in question.
I heard of a report that concluded the California San Juaquin valley growing soil is so depleted of it's natural minerals that the real nourishment quality of the produce is quite poor. Gee, maybe there is something reasonable behind God's directions about crop rotation and giving the land a sabbath after all?
Grace, peace & trusting God's design
12. JB said the following at 5:59 PM on Jul 29:
Why would an organization take the time to make such an utterly irrelevant point? It's kind of bizarre that they have no information about world food and water resources, for example. I suspect this means the facts are not on their side.
13. Lauren T. said the following at 6:16 PM on Jul 29:
David Daniel (#7):
We are not going to end the Earth or the living beings on it.
God is going to.
It's going to happen. The sky is going to fall. The sea is going to dry up, the people are going to die, the Earth is going to die.
And we are going to have NOTHING to do with it. It will not end a moment before or a moment after God has decided and no amount of children we have, food we consume, species that perish, will change it.
Should we be good stewards? Of course. Should we think we are God and can destroy the Earth before his time? Nope.
Just a little perspective...
14. Josh M said the following at 6:36 PM on Jul 29:
You can do some fun things with this UN data. For instance now I have a chart that tells me that the world population of 0-19 year olds is peaking now (2010) at 36% of the population. Candice's linked site mentions that the population peaks around 2030 which also coincides with when the 20-44 age group population peaks. At that point 0-19 year olds will be down to 26% of the population. There's no indication of when 70+ peaks and 45-69 are slowing in growth by 2050, but not to their peak.
(the age year ranges I used were chosen to make the data more wieldy, no other combination was attempted)
15. Chris said the following at 7:37 PM on Jul 29:
"Imminent and rescheduled"....
Interesting. Edgar Whisenant said something catastrophic (can't remember what exactly) was imminent in 1988, then he rescheduled it to 1989.
Others have proposed similar events/scenarios since man was first able to tell time.
None have come true.
16. Sarah22 said the following at 8:07 PM on Jul 29:
Do you really believe Candace thinks it's a plausible idea for the entire human population to live in Texas?
Obviously not.
The fact that you are actually seriously callling her out on the practicality of that statement is way more ridiculous than anything else in this post.
17. Patrick said the following at 8:43 PM on Jul 29:
Although I am not a crop science major, my degree crosses over into the subject, so I hopefully have a little bit of agricultural knowledge as well. If I remember all the data correctly, the theoretical maximum yield for corn is 680 bushels/ acre, and we are only harvesting about 150-200 bushels per acre on average currently, with maximums of up to 350 bushels. Monsanto, INC. (or maybe another company, I forget) has recently begun an initiative to raise those numbers to 400 bushels per acre on average, with maximum yields around 600 bushels per acre, roughly double current production. They have, as one would expect, undertaken similar projects regarding other crop plants as well. This could approximately double current food production rates.
Considering that current food production is roughly meeting demand, I would be comfortable with a world population of as much as 12-14 billion if food production doubled. This could be achieved without any more acreage being put into production, assuming that the plant breeders can reach their goals.
brx (11): It is somewhat saddening to hear that the San Joaquin soil quality is declining. I took a quick look into the soil fertility issues over there, but from what little I saw, the problem can hopefully be remedied (at a price) by the application of either gypsum or plant micronutients.
Hope this provides a little food for thought, so to speak.
18. Saidahwk said the following at 9:59 PM on Jul 29:
Okay, the point is not that we can all fit into Texas; I'm pretty sure that was just to give us a visual image of how many people are actually on our planet. But for those of you who had to take it at face value....
Obviously we have more space outside of Texas; so are you proposing that it would be incomprehensible for everyone to live in the United States? I'm pretty sure the point is that there's room for everyone, and if not, it really makes more sense to get rid of retired people, and disabled people and sick people, and poor people and other "undesirables." I mean, just not having children is (obviously) just a good way to cause global financial problems and then wipe out the human race. Getting rid of undesirables (like obnoxious boundless commenters) makes way more sense.
But really, we're all God-fearing Christians here, I'm sure we all believe God is in control...
19. Ultraviolet said the following at 11:02 PM on Jul 29:
As other people have said, it's not about physically fitting people in a certain amount of space, but also have space enough for the resources to support those people.
I'm not sure what the point of this post is saying...is it so show that it's really okay to have big families after all? Or...something else? Why can't we talk about probing spiritual issues rather than...well, this.
20. tiredofentitlement said the following at 11:17 PM on Jul 29:
@rushncap: I think Candice's point was to bring forth some intelligent conversation, in a facetious, eyeopening way, about the direction that our government and leaders are taking; NOT for others to be condescending and degrading. Contribute or be quiet. Please.
21. obewan said the following at 11:45 PM on Jul 29:
If anyone intends to claim that millions are not already starving on our planet then they have their head in the sand.
I'm sorry, but I am not going to drink that cool aid. Here in the U.S. most people have enough food, so it is easy to give pat answers on this topic or say, I've got mine, so I'm not worried.
There really is a finite amount of resources, and a cheap source of petroleum is the key to feeding the planet. That source will soon be gone. There is no denying that it will eventually happen or that billions will starve when it does.
I think this whole thread is insensitive to those starving in Africa. Sure, you can say just use an Ox to farm, but what about those people who have already starved because they were forced to starve or eat their ox when drought took all their food?
I don’t think people concerned about population size are saying kill the poor. I think they are the people who actually care about the poor. I mean, how sane is it to say just populate with no worries at all? Some countries do not teach use of birth control and there are families with 8 or 10 kids, and they are starving because of it.
22. Janelle said the following at 12:28 AM on Jul 30:
Of course we can't reasonably fit a whole world into Texas-- there wouldn't be enough water or food produced in our backyards to support us all. But that doesn't mean this whole post is irrelevant or, as #8 rushncap said, "utterly ridiculous."
If the world's people all fit into a space the size of Texas, that gives us still entire continents of space that are free to use for food production, for mining of natural resources, for animal grazing, for recreation areas and national parks, for waste disposal.
Clearly there is enough room for everyone and all the things we need to survive and thrive.
23. Daniella said the following at 12:41 AM on Jul 30:
So I don't think the real topic is whether everyone would fit in Texas or not or if we could how we would make it work. The point is that the if we could all technically fit in Texas then the earth isn't overpopulated and we have plenty of room for personal space and expansion.
24. CT said the following at 1:01 AM on Jul 30:
If everyone moved to Texas, could cowboys still ride free without trespassing on somebody's front yard? If not, I suppose some Texans would rather die of disease.
25. Louise from Chicago said the following at 5:28 AM on Jul 30:
Nonwithstanding this post, I'm still not going to have any kids!
26. Paxton said the following at 5:41 AM on Jul 30:
Candice! I love this :D thank you for posting it. I was talking about overpopulation with my family a few days ago, and was entirely mistaken it seems. =P
I think some people will think that your "Uh huh" means "Uh-uh" though. I wasn't sure until I read the link =)
27. Paxton said the following at 5:42 AM on Jul 30:
The reason I like this so much is that it gives me more hope for my Chestertonian dreams of peasant proprietorship. ;)
28. Ryan said the following at 6:16 AM on Jul 30:
Maybe, instead of worrying about overpopulation and sustainability, we can start worrying about God's first command to man in Genesis 1:28, "God blessed them; and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.'"
Should we be responsible stewards? Absolutely. That doesn't mean we should neglect God's command to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. We aren't there yet.
29. Michelle said the following at 6:35 AM on Jul 30:
I've heard that it takes 2.1 to 2.4 children per family to sustain a population. I think the United States is at 2.1; most of Europe is in the 1 range; and the Muslim population is at 5 to 7. Interesting.
30. Chris said the following at 6:50 AM on Jul 30:
BDB writes:
The problem with putting everyone in Texas is that there's no fresh water for the Western half of the state.
Very true, but you overlook the bigger problem.
It's Texas.
(ducks)
31. NucJimbo said the following at 7:35 AM on Jul 30:
Well, we shouldn't just throw our hands up in the air when we're confronted with those questions of adequate water, waste removal, food, air quality, etc. The topic of energy was mentioned. As someone who works in the energy field, I do not see it being infeasible to use nuclear power in the form of mini-reactors for the baseload, use solar-paneled houses for some extra energy (particularly water heating), and add in wind turbines (NOT solar fields and wind turbine fields, we're going for efficiency here). You may make a comment about the nuclear fuel supply, but my model would assume higher enrichment, reprocessing, and even thorium. Also, solar power collection towers would be a neat idea for the roofs of houses...oh but that's taking it a little too far perhaps.
So, those are just my ideas. Perhaps we would have to spread the people out over into New Mexico and Oklahoma too...but don't doubt what we're capable of these days, it's incredible how long we can keep food fresh, move merchandise from one side of the world to the other, produce energy...really, God has made us pretty innovative. I agree it's a little ridiculous to think of moving the entire population of the world to Texas, but like I said, let's not just throw in the towel when it comes to the issues once they're there.
32. Johnny said the following at 7:58 AM on Jul 30:
Don't worry guys like Prince Philip, Ted Turner, and Obama's "science advisor" John Holdern want to kill off 80% to 90% of humaninty to save the Earth- for themselves. Do not take vaccines, do not give vaccines to your children. Poisoned vaccines will be one way this culling will be implemented. Death to the New World Order.
33. Cassandra said the following at 10:07 AM on Jul 30:
I'm not sure what the point of this post is saying...is it to show that it's really okay to have big families after all?
Yes, in part. People that have more than two kids are often scorned in our society because of "overpopulation", and overpopulation is used to justify abortion too.
I personally can't stand hearing recycled truisms that aren't based in fact. If this website is correct and Candice brought it to our attention, I'm grateful to her for preventing me from recycling the same self-righteous nonsense I always hear at cocktail parties.
Candice -- you may talk about relationships, if you wish.
Considering that Candice started this blog, don't you think it's her prerogative to post whatever she wishes? And since she just published a book entitled "Start Your Family" isn't this content that she posted well within Boundless' purview?
34. Jonathan said the following at 10:11 AM on Jul 30:
Hmm, well I would respond to all those who have posted in opposition of Candace: isn't it more a question of distribution of resources rather than actual resources? I lived for a while in the 78th richest country in the world (population approximately 27 million), yet due to the way the country was run there were several uprisings because people couldn't even afford bread(!). I've seen this in other countries I've stayed briefly in...those in power use their power to distribute the resources to whomever supports them. Don't support the government? No food/water/money/land/etc. for you!
So I would very strongly maintain that the issue is not so much whether we have the resources to sustain continued growth, but rather how those resources are distributed. And in closing, certainly we could do with a lot less here in the US and send a bit of that excess to other countries (useful only, of course, if the dictators in said countries actually then distribute the resources to those who need it).
35. a different Julie said the following at 10:26 AM on Jul 30:
For a sampling of those who the government should "thin out" first, let us look to the comic operetta The Mikado, circa 1885...
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There's the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs —
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs —
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with 'em flat —
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that —
And all third persons who on spoiling tête-á-têtes insist —
They'd none of 'em be missed — they'd none of 'em be missed!
36. obewan said the following at 10:55 AM on Jul 30:
So I would very strongly maintain that the issue is not so much whether we have the resources to sustain continued growth,-------Jonathan #34
Seriously? You really have not heard about all the empty dry oil wells in the U.S.? Perhaps you can enlighten us on how we can “replenish” the supply that is gone so that we won't have to rely on all the Middle East Oil.
Mexico is next in line to go completely totally dry of oil in only a few more years, and they are a major supplier of U.S. and world oil.
So, yes, you are partly correct in saying that distribution is important, but if there is a shortage that will not happen for poor countries that cannot afford to buy such a scarce resource.
In 50 years, nearly all the remaining cheap oil is expected to be gone. And for the few drops that remain, it will not be an issue of how little remains as much as how much it will cost. Even the wealthy will struggle when gas costs $10 or $15 or $20 a gallon. How many more millions were starving when gas was only $4 a gallon just last year? Many of them had $2 a day to live on and their daily allocation of a few cups of rice for each family member went to $4 a day. So, the only option I suppose is for rich countries to subsidize their daily feeding.
37. rushncap said the following at 10:57 AM on Jul 30:
OK, so if the point ISN'T that we can all fit into Texas... then why make it a point?? Basically all those defending this post are saying "Yes, she wrote the post, but the point of the post was not contained in it". Wonderful.
The point of Candace's post was "don't worry, overpopulation is not a problem". To support this claim she provides 3 links. 1st is the bio of the person who Candace maintains first made the overpopulation claim -- interesting but irrelevant. 2nd is a personal attack on the beliefs of this person -- interesting and mean-spirited, but also irrelevant. 3rd is an utterly ridiculous illustration of her claim.
So, ummmm, what was the point of this post again?
38. Texas Craig said the following at 11:16 AM on Jul 30:
Chris (#30):
Nice. :-)
Truth be told, we don't want the rest of y'all moving here anyway. Our economy is still running along pretty well, we actually still punish criminals, and we have plenty of sunshine (of course, we also have had a lot of HEAT lately!). We would like to keep it that way, so the rest of y'all should stay where you are.
As for Candice's basic point, I like what obewan said. The issue is not that we need to keep popping out babies. Rather, we ought to do all that we can to take care of the kids that exist. As soon as I learn that all orphans and foster kids have been placed with loving families, then I will jump on the "let's have more babies" bandwagon. Until then, I am more concerned about the fact that the Bible says a lot more about caring for orphans than "being fruitful and multiplying."
Peace and grace! (except to you, Chris, you sorry anti-Texan!) :-)
39. brx said the following at 11:23 AM on Jul 30:
Re: Patrick #17;
...12~14 billion if food production doubled.
That seems to neglect distribution infrastructure and that a significant number of people think it would be good to use a large portion of that for machine fuel. I also wonder if that is by organic methods because I sense evidence is mounting that many of our synthetic high production procedures are leeding to delayed, unintended, detrimental consequences.
Those things aside, I still think God has given us collectively and individually, the ability to continue to be fruitful and multiply within His loving & ethical guidelines.
-------
Re: Saidahwk #18;
I'm sure we all believe God is in control...
Yes, but some of us also believe God compels us to participate in the control... and some of those are unaware that God has given intelligent guidelines for that participation...
-------
e: obewan #21;
...there are families with 8 or 10 kids, and they are starving because of it.
They are NOT starving BECAUSE they have too many kids; they are starving because PEOPLE are sinful and often do not work together to meet each others' needs as God desires us to. Remember, we're stil supposed to be actively praying and seeking the Kingdom of God, helping it to advance on _Earth_ as it is in Heaven - that everyone will have as he/she has need. (yes, it is communism, but where God is God and His will rules, not a select group of sinful people)
Grace, peace & adventure in ethical problem-solving
40. David Daniel said the following at 11:50 AM on Jul 30:
@Lauren T.:
The Earth as we know it is going to end, God is going to renew all creation. (How much destruction that involves is disputed) Praise God!
Just because the apocalypse is coming, doesn't mean we are incapable of destroying the Earth. Parts of the Earth have already been destroyed because of humanity's activities. For example: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. We have enough nuclear weapons to finish off the rest of the planet. Is it inconceivable to think that overpopulation could also harm nature and harm ourselves?
My question was trying to pinpoint how much destruction it would take for us to realise we are overpopulated. The answer cannot be 'never'. Nor can it be: 'not before the end of the world'.
41. DP said the following at 12:21 PM on Jul 30:
I think Texas Craig's Posts should be moved to the top of every thread, so the discussion can start off coherently and with valid points.
Maybe you could send him the post before you publish it, and he can have his response to add? Can we start a petition for this?
42. Ultraviolet said the following at 12:26 PM on Jul 30:
Ryan (28) --
I think you need to look at what being a responsible steward means. I would find it very difficult to believe that God would want us to keep populating the earth, regardless of the consequences until it actually couldn't take it anymore. Conveniently, the only reason we're able to sustain the population we have now is due to the agricultural technology we've developed (which is also harming the environment, as well as mistreating many of the animals we consume).
Janelle (22) --
"that gives us still entire continents of space that are free to use for food production, for mining of natural resources, for animal grazing, for recreation areas and national parks, for waste disposal."
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I found this statistic: only 10.57% of land in the world is arable (it can grow food) (source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html) Further, not all of this land is viable for yielding natural resources, especially with the way we have been abusing them in recent centuries. So it's not like we have continents upon continents at our disposal, as you seem to suggest. So the fact that we can all fit into Texas really doesn't prove anything. All it seems to foster is the idea that we can continue to take for granted the resources we so readily have in the West, assuming that the world will always be ready and willing to yield them.
43. Andrew (rootbeer) said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 30:
I think the point of the Texas illustration was that everyone could potentially live in Texas and then there is the rest of the world to provide the energy and food etc.
So a question for rushncap, do you think the earth is overpopulated, or do you just not like the way the post was organized? Just wondering.
44. NucJimbo said the following at 12:54 PM on Jul 30:
40. David Daniel: "Parts of the Earth have already been destroyed because of humanity's activities. For example: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima."
If you are trying to say that Hiroshima is a barren wasteland, you should tell that to the 1.1 million + people who live there (as it is Japan's 11th largest city, I believe). Nagasaki also has a fairly large population (over 400,000). Perhaps you meant to say the town of Chernobyl (not a huge city to begin with, and currently very few people live there).
I do not see how just because weapons (your example being nuclear, a more common one would be dynamite) can harm nature that we should say overpopulation is a similar force. I think there's a possible argument for overpopulation (which I find weak, unconvincing, and missing the bigger issue of distribution), but I refuse to equate Hiroshima with having 7 children/family.
45. Josh M said the following at 1:08 PM on Jul 30:
The linked site is a part of the Population Research Institute (as it says at the bottom of each page). The Institute is concerned with the methods used by governmental proponents of the idea that overpopulation is a potential problem. That is the underlying point of this post and the Overpopulation is a Myth site.
So the real question is: if you think overpopulation is (or could be) a problem, what means do you use to deal with it?
46. Texas Craig said the following at 1:23 PM on Jul 30:
DP (#41):
LOL! I am not sure which part of my post you think is most coherent and valid - my defense of Texas or my defense of orphans! ;-)
Peace and grace!
TC
47. Trevor Dolby said the following at 3:56 PM on Jul 30:
Texas Craig (38): I think it's possible to “keep popping out babies” _and_ “take care of the kids that exist“ in so far as we are called to do so by God. It seems unlikely that we will ever take perfect care of all existing children, and to stop reproduction for that reason would be unwise (to put it mildly). Not that I think you actually believe that, of course :)
However, nobody seems willing to state what they believe the ideal population of any country (or the world) to be! Should we simply try to remain at a stable population worldwide? In every country? What about distribution issues, where some countries are over-populated and others have shrinking population?
The answers to the above questions very quickly lead to answers about having children. If you want a stable population on a per-country basis, then Japan and Western Europe need more children, and India needs fewer! (and loads of other countries fit in in various places). But is this really what people are trying to say?
48. Jim H. said the following at 6:24 PM on Jul 30:
I found a book using Google Search entitled “Energy, Plants, and Man” by David Walker that discussed among other things how much land is required to feed one person. According to Walker, it is theoretically possible to feed 1 person for 1 year on a 6m x 22m plot. But a more practical number given is 10m x 40m - 400 square meters. Converting this to square feet and then to square miles, you get 10x40*3.28^2 = 4303 sq ft. 4303/5280^2 = 1.54*10^-4 sq miles.
Now from the CIA fact book that someone else also quoted, we know that about 10% of the world’s land is arable. There are about 57.5 million square miles of land on earth which means there’s about 5.75 million square miles of arable land. 5.75 x 10^6/1.54X10^-4 = 37.3 billion people. So it seems there is a lot of wiggle room for more people if all the arable land were fully harnessed. And with better technology, of course, you could more efficiently use the available arable land and get closer to 144 square meter minimum rather than the 400 square meter area that I used in the calculation.
It has been stated that there are starving people in Africa, but I believe that has to do more with corrupt/incompetent governments than with worldwide inability to feed them.
Regarding energy, it sure would have been nice of some of that stimulus money was used to fund more nuclear power plants….
49. Sarah23 said the following at 7:02 PM on Jul 30:
Those who want every single child in the world to be cared for before the rest of us can have more children are living under the realm of thinking that we can control sin. We cannot stop others from sinning, and in the majority of cases, most orphans/abandoned children are the result of S-I-N. We live in a fallen world people!
For example, all those kids in Africa who are parent-less and malnourished are usually in that situation because their parents had premarital sex and contracted HIV/AIDS and died as a result of their disease (just an example, I know I will be bombarded with the statistics of how many women are raped, etc....again, all is a result of sin that we cannot control).
God does have consequences set up for those who sin. THANK GOD for His grace - there is no sin too big for Him to cover with His grace, however that doesn't change that there are natural consequences to everything we do.
My heart goes out to all those people who are starving, abandoned, etc. and I think we should do what we can to help them, but at the same time I feel like you are telling me that I should deny myself the God-given joy of parenting a large family because someone else sinned. I'm not buying it. I don't understand everything in this world and never will, but I know that God's thinking is above mine and His word never contradicts itself. We can help the widowed/poor/orphaned and still have our own big family. God says don't worry about tomorrow because today has enough of it's own problems. I'm not going to be scared into not having as many children as God chooses to bless me with because I'm worried about running out of petroleum, or not having enough usable earth to plant corn on....that seems to be trying to take control back into your own hands, which is NOT in God's word.
50. Texas Craig said the following at 11:40 PM on Jul 30:
Trevor:
Valid questions. I'll come out and respond and say that I think a "baby rate" of about 2.1 per couple is pretty good for all countries. For some, this will mean drastic cutbacks in reproduction; for others, increases. This rate replaces the existing population and also allows some moderate population growth.
Along with this, I also think we need to modify many of our ideas about retirement and health care, so that way we do not "need" higher birth rates to care for the aging population. As for me, I have no intention of actually "retiring." Why should I have any notion that I am entitled to have some period of leisure at the end of my life? I say live life to the fullest every day and you don't need to retire.
Second, as I have mentioned elsewhere, we need to modify our ideas of health care. We have greater access to health care than most places in the world. Medicare provides health care and prescription drugs to citizens over 65 regardless of need. Why is it not entirely need-based? And, why do we think we are entitled to so much healthcare, when so many people in the world are lacking access to many basic health services?
If we address some of these other issues, birth rates are not quite as significant (but are still important).
51. Texas Craig said the following at 1:32 PM on Jul 31:
Sarah23:
I am not telling you anything you have to do. I simply would point out that God has a heart for orphans and expects us, His body, to do the same:
James 1:27 - "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Deuteronomy 10:17-19 - "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. 18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt."
Isaiah 1:17: "Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow."
Psalm 82:3 - "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed."
In Deuteronomy 24 and 26, God told the Israelites to leave food in their fields for the orphans, aliens, and widows.
In Psalm 29 and 31, David talks about his good deeds, including his care for the orphans.
You can read the verses and decide for yourself what your responsibility should be. But, to me, the verses seem pretty clear and are convicting. And, while certainly there are consequences to sin, you surely are not suggesting that it is acceptable for the orphans to suffer because of their parents' sins are you?
52. Leah said the following at 6:23 PM on Jul 31:
rushncap (8) - I understand where you're coming from with the idea "just because we all fit somewhere doesn't mean anything - we need space to grow crops, dispose of waste, build powerstations, grow trees etc".
But seriously, Texas is NOT that big. Sorry to break it to you. Even on a national level, Texas takes up only 2% of America's area. So even if you did fit the world's population into Texas, you'd still have 98% of the country to grow crops, trees, build power stations, build schools, etc etc. (This is of course disregarding desert etc.) So if you look at it on a world scale, that leaves an AWFUL lot of extra land for all those extra necessities. Pointing out the world's population could fit into Texas is not that meaningless.
53. Mike Theemling said the following at 1:43 AM on Aug 2:
The main problem as some have pointed is out is not so much as there are too many people on the planet now, but rather that the distribution of the population in relation to resources needed by those people are skewed.
For example, most Westernized countries have either a low or even negative population growth rate (take away immigration and America's growth rate actually isn't very high). Yet despite this, America produces about twice as much food as we require (I'd argue more considering how we have an obesity epidemic). Why does this occur? Simple: Economics. Having less kids generally equates to a higher standard of living, and subsistence farming does not make one wealthy.
In the past, among agricultural/plantation style economies, having lots of kids was an asset, because the labor was needed and feeding them wasn't an issue (because you just ate a portion of the crops you grew). But once more countries moved to an industrial base where more work was done by machines than man, the extra hands weren't needed. China learned this lesson the hard way. It first encouraged families to have many children in the mid-20th century, but then when the Great Leap Forward policy attempted to move China to a more industrialized base, you ended up with a glut of excess labor. That and mismanagement led to severe famines which led to the death of about 30+ million people.
Of course, what are the solutions? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. And although I believe that we should strive to help the poor as God commanded us I don't believe that translates into a mandate for poorer nations becoming perpetually dependent upon richer nations for their citizen's basic needs. It's very easy for charity to devolve into reinforcing bad habits. For example, what motivation does a farmer in Ethiopia have to grow crops if he knows that free grain will flood the streets next week and undercut his work? And are also other factors involved. Corruption turns food and medicine into a leverage tool used by warlords rather than a means to develop the nation as a whole. These are issues which people have struggled with since nations began and will be not solved overnight, nor I believe mitigated entirely.
I believe that the question "Are there too many people?" is the wrong one to be asking. Rather, what we should be asking is, "How can we best help those people who are around now to make smart choices which will lead them towards a life without want?"
Finally, I like what Sarah23 (#49) said. This is not a zero-sum game where the existence of a starving child in Africa means we cannot have a child of our own just to "even things out". Helping the poor and producing/providing for your own family are not mutually exclusive. All we can do is to help out those individuals which God has laid upon our hearts and to trust Him amidst the turmoil we see in the world.
54. rushncap said the following at 10:45 AM on Aug 3:
Yes, Leah, it most certainly IS meaningless to point out that the world's population can fit into Texas. I understand that this may be the best argument the "overpopulation is not a problem" side can come up with, but that does not mean it's a good one.
55. Ann said the following at 7:21 PM on Aug 3:
The video Candice linked to is just the first in a planned series. I got an e-mail from PRI saying that resources will be discussed in a future video.