Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[Openmind]

Besides irrigation, he is also using energy indirectly by buying fertilizer and pesticides.

One problem I'm referring to is arable land.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide .
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide.
That is about 1/3 of a small city block.
How much arable land will there be 100 years from now.
Agricultural efficiency has risen dramatically, but as it rises it requires more and more energy to sustain the high efficiency.

Population has tripled in my lifetime. When it triples again there will be .2 acres of arable land per person.
That is a plot 93x93 feet.

My point in all the arguing with a theologian in this thread is that the church is more concerned with individual morality, and not the morality as man as a shepherd of his environment. I think the church should take a more active role.

I agree. Look at central Africa. Overpopulations, wars, and famine in addition to climate change have made that area of the world basically a waste land. High birth rate is coupled with very high infant mortality. What is moral about that?

Wouldn't it be more moral to prevent pregnancies and prevent births than to let babies and young children die in infancy?

African cannot sustain its population, so they die. Genocide is a horrible form of population control. . .and everyone is willing to condemn this. . . but no one (especially the "Christians") are willing to provide free birth control and education to limit the population surge and the death that insue.

 

[Lagboltz]

I agree. Look at central Africa. Overpopulations, wars, and famine in addition to climate change have made that area of the world basically a waste land. High birth rate is coupled with very high infant mortality. What is moral about that?

Wouldn't it be more moral to prevent pregnancies and prevent births than to let babies and young children die in infancy?

African cannot sustain its population, so they die. Genocide is a horrible form of population control. . .and everyone is willing to condemn this. . . but no one (especially the "Christians") are willing to provide free birth control and education to limit the population surge and the death that insue.

Right on!

A large part of Catholic theological theory embraces natural law. Natural law dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, circa 1250, did not have the same population or resource problems as we do today. In science, when a theory shows faults, the system is investigated for potential changes. These changes have happened countless times over the centuries. However, theology apparently lives in the past, and they are still preserving moral theory that has been seriously outdated.

 

[ProudLefty]

Besides irrigation, he is also using energy indirectly by buying fertilizer and pesticides.

One problem I'm referring to is arable land.
In 2006, there was 1.15 acres of arable land per person, world-wide .
By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide.
That is about 1/3 of a small city block.
How much arable land will there be 100 years from now.
Agricultural efficiency has risen dramatically, but as it rises it requires more and more energy to sustain the high efficiency.

Population has tripled in my lifetime. When it triples again there will be .2 acres of arable land per person.
That is a plot 93x93 feet.

My point in all the arguing with a theologian in this thread is that the church is more concerned with individual morality, and not the morality as man as a shepherd of his environment. I think the church should take a more active role.

One other observation I would make is that as people raise their own standard of living they tend to have fewer children. That, in a way, becomes a self-enforcing limit on births. So, if we can provide decent standards of living we can reasonably expect population growth to slow.

However I have a real problem with your math. I know there are crowded places on the planet, but egads! There is empty space all over the place. We are a very long ways from being full.

Arable land is also an artificially defined term. There are several experiments where, with proper planning and proper techniques, deserts bloom, and is done without anything more than proper planning and techniques. No pesticides, fertilizers, or expensive irrigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

 

[Openmind]

One other observation I would make is that as people raise their own standard of living they tend to have fewer children. That, in a way, becomes a self-enforcing limit on births. So, if we can provide decent standards of living we can reasonably expect population growth to slow.

However I have a real problem with your math. I know there are crowded places on the planet, but egads! There is empty space all over the place. We are a very long ways from being full.

Arable land is also an artificially defined term. There are several experiments where, with proper planning and proper techniques, deserts bloom, and is done without anything more than proper planning and techniques. No pesticides, fertilizers, or expensive irrigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

Yes, there are a lot of empty spaces. . .especially in America!

But, you're not really suggesting that we would be willing to take a few millions of African immmigrants from the most devasted central African countries every year to provide them with arable land to survive, right?

Haven't we already demonstrated what an "hospitable" place we are by our attitude toward the Jewish thrown out of Germany during WWII and, ever since then, our "South of the Border" neighbors?

Can you imagine the outcry? What about the "wild horses?" Where would they live?! (sarcasm!)

 

[Lagboltz]

One other observation I would make is that as people raise their own standard of living they tend to have fewer children. That, in a way, becomes a self-enforcing limit on births. So, if we can provide decent standards of living we can reasonably expect population growth to slow.

However I have a real problem with your math. I know there are crowded places on the planet, but egads! There is empty space all over the place. We are a very long ways from being full.

Arable land is also an artificially defined term. There are several experiments where, with proper planning and proper techniques, deserts bloom, and is done without anything more than proper planning and techniques. No pesticides, fertilizers, or expensive irrigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

You have a less pessimistic outlook than I do. I hope you are right. Here is my pessimistic response.

Efforts to make the average standard of living increase will still leave a large number of people with a low standard of living. The uneducated and "welfare moms" will have more kids and keep a large pocket of people in desperate substandard conditions.

My math came from this site: http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm
I watched the youtube video. It is encouraging that committed people can reverse the dessert like that. What is the initial cost in energy and labor? and the ongoing cost to harvest and maintain it?

I grant you that arable land can increase in area, but there is still an upper limit. As the food supply increases, the population will increase to the point where misery still exists.

My problem is that governments are focussing more on increasing the use (and thereby the depletion) of resources. They should be putting more focus on population control right now. But it is impossible to restrain the most fundamental act, procreation, by law, unless you are living in China. So it is a real dilemma.

 

[PLC1]

The solution is to terraform Mars and Venus. That way, we'll have three home planets, and be able to have three times the population.

 

[ProudLefty]

You have a less pessimistic outlook than I do. I hope you are right. Here is my pessimistic response.

Efforts to make the average standard of living increase will still leave a large number of people with a low standard of living. The uneducated and "welfare moms" will have more kids and keep a large pocket of people in desperate substandard conditions.

My math came from this site: http://one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm
I watched the youtube video. It is encouraging that committed people can reverse the dessert like that. What is the initial cost in energy and labor? and the ongoing cost to harvest and maintain it?

I grant you that arable land can increase in area, but there is still an upper limit. As the food supply increases, the population will increase to the point where misery still exists.

My problem is that governments are focussing more on increasing the use (and thereby the depletion) of resources. They should be putting more focus on population control right now. But it is impossible to restrain the most fundamental act, procreation, by law, unless you are living in China. So it is a real dilemma.

I am curious: how big a problem do you believe the welfare mom is? My guess is that you believe it a sizable chunk of welfare, which is not true.

But let me go a step farther: If you are one of those who squeal and holler about the horrors of abortion then you have no standing in the discussion. You must help feed and raise those kids.

I really do not like the right wing rhetoric about the sanctity of a child's life, until its born. Then, the hell with him; that baby is on its own. I really hate that attitude and I see it in a lot of places, including the orange man's whining about needing to cut safety net programs.

 

[Lagboltz]

First of all I am also a lefty -- about midway between center and far left.

I am curious: how big a problem do you believe the welfare mom is? My guess is that you believe it a sizable chunk of welfare, which is not true.

I agree with you. I was using the term "welfare mom" as a metaphor for people that have a serious lack of wisdom in conducting their lives. Those people often have no concept of family planning and pop out babies at a rate that is not good for their financial stability, let alone the stability of the planet.

But let me go a step farther: If you are one of those who squeal and holler about the horrors of abortion then you have no standing in the discussion. You must help feed and raise those kids.

Believe me, I am not one of the abortion freeks. I believe it is up to the woman to decide what she wants for any reason she wants. I.e. Choice.

I really do not like the right wing rhetoric about the sanctity of a child's life, until its born. Then, the hell with him; that baby is on its own. I really hate that attitude and I see it in a lot of places, including the orange man's whining about needing to cut safety net programs.

Actually I think that abortion is a unfortunate, but necessary. It's not unfortunate in the sense that some glob of DNA without a brainstem is lost, but unfortunate that people are not practicing birth control and have to face crap like Florida laws that require a woman to pay for and see a sonogram of the unborn fetus before having an abortion. Florida can't halt abortion so they make it an uphill battle. By seeing the fetus they are trying to change the womans mind. Religious beliefs are entering state law, and that p*sses me off.

 

[Lagboltz]

The solution is to terraform Mars and Venus. That way, we'll have three home planets, and be able to have three times the population.

I think you are kidding. I talked to a Priest once who believed in large families so that more could revere God. If we have Mars and Venus, He gets three times the adoration. But from my secular viewpoint, why do we need so many people? It is a survival instinct that is now running rampant.

 

[PLC1]

I think you are kidding. I talked to a Priest once who believed in large families so that more could revere God. If we have Mars and Venus, He gets three times the adoration. But from my secular viewpoint, why do we need so many people? It is a survival instinct that is now running rampant.

Well, yes, of course, I'm kidding about terraforming other planets.

What is the solution to this problem? the number of human beings keeps growing. When that growth slows in one part of the world, someone makes up for it elsewhere. We are now what, around seven billion? If some unimaginable catastrophe should wipe out 99.9% of the human race, there would still be seven million of us, plenty to not be an endangered species.

No one knows what the carrying capacity of the Earth may be. It is no doubt more for an agricultural economy than it was for the hunter gatherers that our ancestors were for about 95% of human existence.

Our best bet is technological advancements that more efficiently utilize the limited resources of our home planet, along with rational curbs on population growth.

But, that requires rationality and cooperation. Perhaps the next dominant species will do better.

 

[Lagboltz]

Our best bet is technological advancements that more efficiently utilize the limited resources of our home planet, along with rational curbs on population growth.

But, that requires rationality and cooperation. Perhaps the next dominant species will do better.

I bet the next dominant species will be silicon based. Someone once said that a computer smarter than the human brain is the last invention man need make.

 

[GenSeneca]

Our best bet is technological advancements that more efficiently utilize the limited resources of our home planet, along with rational curbs on population growth.

But, that requires rationality and cooperation.

So you're thinking... Forced abortions... Mandatory Sterilization...Euthanization of the elderly and infirmed? That would be very Progressive, not to mention Pragmatic.

 

[PLC1]

So you're thinking... Forced abortions... Mandatory Sterilization...Euthanization of the elderly and infirmed? That would be very Progressive, not to mention Pragmatic.

Hey, you really nailed this guy:

 

[PLC1]

I bet the next dominant species will be silicon based. Someone once said that a computer smarter than the human brain is the last invention man need make.

Maybe that is the evolutionary purpose of humans, to make the switch from carbon based life to silicone based.

Wild speculation, of course, but I've wondered about that at times.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

The last sentence in my paragraph that you bolded says almost precisely what you are allowing right now. If you say my logic breaks down at that point I am willing to substitute any logic that you may come up with to make that same assertion at that point in my argument.

The above is a further repetition of my argument in that the right to life entails a responsibility not to defile the environment.

I may have reached a similar conclusion but the manner of reaching it is material here. It is meaningless to say that moral human behavior consists of instantiating the essence of something not human.

You have not followed through to address the final question: How can equilibrium of global population be maintained when the environment reaches exhaustion of it's resources?

If I have misapprehended the question, that's because I don't see its relevance. What you're asking is a technical question, not a moral one.

I suppose the next thing you're going to ask me is how can I reconcile a high death rate brought about the presumption that life will continue under present conditions. That, to me, is a consequentialist question; I reject the logic of it. Morality is not determined by the outcome of an act.

At any rate, there will be a gradual winding-down of resource availability with attendant rise in commodity prices. As this happens, two outcomes are likely: either we return to an essentially pre-industrial time over the course of several generations as natural resources become increasingly more difficult to extract, or we develop new resources. If the latter, we have nothing to be concerned about. If the former, then the gradual quality of resource depletion will result not in mass die-offs but in a decrease in standard of living, which, under natural law, would logically force a decrease in the acceptable number of children per couple.

Wouldn't it be more moral to prevent pregnancies and prevent births than to let babies and young children die in infancy?

No, because the morality of an act is not determined by the outcome. Good intentions and good outcomes can only justify, at best, morally neutral acts.

What you're proposing is consequentialism in its rankest form; it's borderline Satanic. There is no limit to the horrors you can justify in the name of maximizing value. If you think God is a utilitarian, it's no wonder you left the Church -- you clearly have no business being in it.

Right on!

A large part of Catholic theological theory embraces natural law. Natural law dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, circa 1250, did not have the same population or resource problems as we do today. In science, when a theory shows faults, the system is investigated for potential changes. These changes have happened countless times over the centuries. However, theology apparently lives in the past, and they are still preserving moral theory that has been seriously outdated.

That's because human morality derives from human nature, which is relatively constant, not from peculiar circumstances of the time or culture.

Hey, you really nailed this guy:

It is not as absurd as you suggest. As I mentioned previously, there is no limit to the horrors that can be justified under consequentialist thinking, so long as the outcome produces something of marginally greater value.