To be fair in modern western countries populations are stabilising and birth-rates dropping. Of course, the population numbers take time to reflect this as people live longer. And China deserve more credit than they are given for biting that bullet. Obviously with religion in decline it is less of a factor in countries that offer freedom of choice. But I'd want a 2 billion max. I think that would be sustainable and leave room for even large mammals, and thus their environments, to survive. But maybe destroying the planet is inevitable. It certainly is another of many theories which explain the Fermi paradox ps. The rum followed by Cider Christmas puddings, accompanied with custard and cream, were well received by the Spanish. Of course I had to explain that next year I would be charging an extra tariff
I'm not so sure that a decline in religious belief is so much of a factor KC. In countries where there is no safety net, and no real insurance for old age then having a large family can be seen as providing security for old age. One of the main differences between us and the third World is that there the extended family is a source of support. So they have bigger families - not sure how you can break out of that cycle.
Religion and the subjugation of women are two mainstays of population overgrowth. As Christopher Hitchens put it: "I'm not particularly a feminist*, but if you get women off the animal cycle of reproduction and give them some say in how many children they'll have, immediately the floor will rise". Religion all but absolutely fails to do this. *I, personally, am a feminist in that I accept that women are our equal in pretty much everything except physicality, and should be treated as such. No time for the likes of anita sarkeesian who is putting the cause of feminism back 50years.
I agree to an extent Fez. However I go back to my original point - where there is no welfare state, then people will fall back upon either the extended family or their religious community when faced with poverty. Weaken the scope of the welfare state and you automatically strengthen the importance of the large family unit, or the Church or the Mosque. If it were only a question of religion then you wouldn't be able to explain why Italy has the lowest birthrate in Europe.
Because Italy is a country with education where parents can invest in their children. In a country with very low (or religious highjacked) education and much poverty, logically having12 kids is a type of pension. It works. In Italy having 1 or 2 kids, and investing in their education, gives much bigger returns than having 12 kids whose education you cannot fund. I also see in Spain (similar to Italy in lots of ways) while people play the religious game there is minimal church attendance. And little evidence that unprotected sex is the norm.
Looking back at my family tree, I see large families of seven or more children, all before the welfare state really came into existence. Certainly none of them were very well off, and the children were sent out to work as soon as possible to add to the family income. In many cases I believe that children have been born simply because people were so hard up that they had what little pleasure was available to them. The teenage pregnancy rate in France has dropped a great deal since free contraception was made available in the colleges, and the church which is still quite powerful didn't create much of a fuss. Many women today have to work to keep the family solvent, but the government also needs them to work to provide tax income. When washing machines first became available, it was going to free the housewife from the drudgery of Monday wash day. It didn't work out like that as clothes were washed more than once a week, and then new machines that were so much better than the existing one, became must have items. Governments needed now the housewife to buy this new machine as they needed even more income. Hence we are now in the crazy world of people being urged to buy even more just to keep wasteful governments in power. Can people be allowed to believe that they have enough to live happily, or must they be subjected to constant pleas to buy more? Only if you have government which treats people fairly, and we get over the idea of every man/woman for themselves.
For me there is no such thing as an optimal population density - it all depends on the relationship between population and resources. Africa does not have a population problem - but one of effective use of resources. It is true that religion could play more of a part in helping population control and the finger is very often pointed at the Pope for not helping in this yet.......there is scarcely one Catholic country which is overpopulated, at least in terms of population size in relation to resources. The finger could more easily be pointed at India, Indonesia or Japan in terms of people per square kilometre. How big is the role of religion in those countries ? Very different I would suggest. Indonesia is the only Islamic country which has an overpopulation problem. We cannot distract ourselves from the fact that the biggest problem is the Western life style and our gluttonous use of resources - if the entire population of the World used resources to the same extent as those in the UK. the USA or Germany then we would need the resources of 4 planets.
I agree. Any religion that teaches against contraception is clearly only going to push population in one direction. I would be a feminist if it didn't feel like every woman I've encountered hates me
Agreed but I think it is just a different measure. Obviously there is an optimum number based on whatever the surviving mix requires and desires. I chose 20% as my observed estimate. And my observations are based on observing resource usage. Not important but I cannot see one catholic country that is not over populated - but again that all depends on what your target is. It is also interesting that people who are interested in controlling resource usage, in a serious way, are more likely to not be a member of certain large organised religions. If you believe this place is just a dress rehearsal for heaven, and will be destroyed when your god returns, I can't see what incentive you'd have to care for this planet. But for me the issue is that the planet will suffer severe damage before the population naturally declines. But if the world was to achieve a sustainable balance I'm pretty sure poverty and religion will be history, and everyone will have an education and be encouraged to think. But I've always been an optimist
You could also say that religious people are more likely to see the World as created by God and therefore should not be violated KC. I would say that, generally speaking, religious people have been over represented in environmentalist groups. As for the relationship between religion and birth control - the picture is very mixed. The Pope has a problem with it - but, as I said, most Catholic countries are underpopulated - of all of them I think Italy has the highest population density. Within Hinduism conceiving more children than can be supported is treated as violating 'Ahimsa' (non violent rule of conduct). Contraception is allowed within Islam, and abortion is allowed under some conditions eg. only with the consent of both parties. The Jewish tradition varies a great deal - women have no commandment to have children - couples generally consult a Rabbi who decides which form of contraception is preferable from a halachic point of view. In Buddhism contraception is acceptable if it prevents conception, but not afterwards. So I think the picture is too mixed to be able to point the finger at religion as a whole. It would be more appropriate to blame Capitalism as a whole - which needs lots of producers and consumers in order to grow, or to blame nationalism which spawns big armies which need supplying.
As someone who was brought up in a non-conformist environment, social justice has rubbed off on me. Religion was not something that you just accepted, but something you thought about, and came to your conclusions on what was right and wrong with it. Many non-conformists went against the teachings of the established churches, working alongside the poorest members of society, often with education high on the list, especially when it came to teaching about controlling the size of the family. When I ran a company with loads of people working for me, I could not and would not have wanted to tell them how to live their lives, but I could show them that they were being treated fairly. It seemed to work well, and you could have said it was based on the early principles that I grew up with. As cologne says there are many different views about religion depending on family background, or where you live, but overall they all seem to teach respect for others. Consumerism however has no respect for anyone unless they keep on buying, and the greater the numbers in a family with a purse the better.
The animal cycle.... and woe beside that they keep giving birth to girls, particularly where the patriarchy rules. The Italians can obviously read a calendar Anyway enough religious stuff in the Nest, Blackburn in the Cup please.
