Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

[Greatest I am]

Are believers culpable for overpopulation?

This question was born from my hearing the story of a man with 17 children of whom 6 were not as normal, so to speak, as the rest. No twins. This family is poor and arguably has no quality of life.

Most Gods favor a reproducing group of adherents.
Without adherents, there relevance would be lost to history.
From Adam on down, we have not let God down, we have reproduced.
Be they Eastern or Western religions, are religions and believers responsible for our dismal control of reproduction?
Are believers culpable for our overpopulation?

Regards
DL

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I lay the blame on heterosexuals.

 

[Sunstone]

How many believers have more children than are needed to maintain the population solely or even primarily for religious reasons?

 

[Sunstone]

I lay the blame on heterosexuals.

It was predicted this would happen back when we debated allowing heterosexuals to marry, circa 10,000 BCE. But I must ask, "Did anyone listen?"

 

[Quagmire]

It was predicted this would happen back when we debated allowing heterosexuals to marry, circa 10,000 BCE. But I must ask, "Did anyone listen?"

I remember that. That and the whole controversy about all the clamshell contributions against it by the LDS (Latter Day Sumerians)

 

[Mister Emu]

It seems a greater correlation is between education and GDP of a population and number of children, than belief...

For example:
File:TFR vs PPP 2009.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SHANMAC]

I agree with Mister Emu. My first thought when I saw the OP was that the scales are heavily weighed in favor of the poor and under educated population as compared to those who strictly have children for the purpose of procreating based upon religious doctrine.

 

[Kenect2]

What overpopulation?

 

[Commoner]

I agree with Mister Emu. My first thought when I saw the OP was that the scales are heavily weighed in favor of the poor and under educated population as compared to those who strictly have children for the purpose of procreating based upon religious doctrine.

Meh, I agree, there are more important factors then religiosity of the individual. However, religion as a whole, that's a different story - like the pope condemning the use of condoms, horrible, horrible mistake.

So, while I agree that on the level of an individual, there are factors that contribute more strongly on the number of children one decides to have (education, financial situation,preferred flavor of ice-cream...), I think there is no single factor that affects the increase in the world's population as a whole more than religion.

 

[darkendless]

What overpopulation?

Such a comment is frightening.

 

[Greatest I am]

What overpopulation?

15 million starve to death yearly.
No problem.
Right?

The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics

Regards
DL

 

[Kenect2]

Some cities might be crowded, but the Earth is not anywhere near over populated. The fact that many people die of starvation does not mean that the Earth is over populated, it just means that the available food is not being distributed properly.

 

[darkendless]

Some cities might be crowded, but the Earth is not anywhere near over populated. The fact that many people die of starvation does not mean that the Earth is over populated, it just means that the available food is not being distributed properly.

Urbanization of the world is challenging our ability to produce enough food/energy/etc.

The earth can sustain 4.5 billion, we're currently a bit over 6 million. It is a huge concern.

 

[Kenect2]

Urbanization of the world is challenging our ability to produce enough food/energy/etc.

The United States produces enough to feed the entire world and we have the distribution networks with which to do it. However what we lack is the motivation and will to do it. As for energy, the only limit we have is what we put on ourselves. We are very cautious about using nuclear energy because the pollution is so toxic. But that doesn't mean that our energy production is necessarily scarce. It is another self imposed limit.

The earth can sustain 4.5 billion, we're currently a bit over 6 million. It is a huge concern.

If we are just going to throw numbers around, I believe the Earth can sustain 100 billion, and our current population isn't a real concern at all.

 

[MSizer]

The United States produces enough to feed the entire world...

Yes but not by means that are sustainable. We cannot continue mass production methods of food production the way we have been for the last few decades without causing some ecological collapses which would be disastrous. Mother nature can tolerate only so much imbalance, and when things get too heavy in one direction, there's no option but for the scale to tip back again.

 

[darkendless]

The United States produces enough to feed the entire world and we have the distribution networks with which to do it. However what we lack is the motivation and will to do it. As for energy, the only limit we have is what we put on ourselves. We are very cautious about using nuclear energy because the pollution is so toxic. But that doesn't mean that our energy production is necessarily scarce. It is another self imposed limit.

Yeh you guys are worried about your rights, your religious freedom and those damn homosexuals ruining America

America cannot supply the globe. Look at the ratio between urban and rural populations and then tell me if you think something like the 8% (not 100% on this one) of the American population can feed 6 billion people. Also, you don't have fertile enough soil to do it for more than about a decade. When crops are harvested salt is a by product due to the sun and the fact that organic matter is taken with the harvested crops and as a result the dirt becomes less and less productive.

America has oil everywhere, but it won't forever. On SBS news here we had a piece about yokels in the south complaining about how rediculous Kyoto is. Its quite amusing to see actually, really fits the funny stereotype of Americans.

What ya'll fail to see is eventually it will run out and then what? You Americans have so much invested in oil that its going to cripple your economy to change. In the mean time commodities will slowly become more expensive because the logistical cost of getting produce and the sort to your local stores will become more expensive.

If we are just going to throw numbers around, I believe the Earth can sustain 100 billion, and our current population isn't a real concern at all.

Throwing numbers around? Im pretty sure if you google the carrying capacity of the globe you'll find that number or +/1 50 million.

 

[Mister Emu]

There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from 1 to 1000 billion.[13] Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion, with a median of about 10 billion.

from Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[darkendless]

There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from 1 to 1000 billion.[13] Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion, with a median of about 10 billion.

from Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh well there we go, thank you sir.

10 billion seems a little extreme given the nature of recent events. Global financial meltdowns, oil prices rising and falling, questions over the availability of oil. Oil is our life blood in the west, it allows us too readily transport goods from production areas to the big cities.

Here in Oz where droughts looks to once again set in (Ill-Nino has floated away again) the growing abbility for farmers may decrease, and last time this happened, virtually entire rural towns moved to the cities. This is not good, meaning we will have to import produce if the trend continues.

Stuff like this which is not readily predictable makes me question the true carrying capacity of the world as more often than not these days we face disasters which destroy infrastructure which is vital to our survival under present conditions. Look at Katrina, that hurt America's oil output.

 

[Kenect2]

I'm not saying the US SHOULD feed the world. I'm just saying that we already have the potential to do so. There is plenty of arable land on the planet to feed billions more people, and we haven't even started talking about new technologies that will give us more food and more places to live.

Its good that we're talking about it now because it will increasingly be relevant, but we are still a very long way from Earth's population saturation point.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem isn't overpopulation, it's screwed up government systems that create and continue patterns of starvation - over-involvement of governments in the growth and distribution of basic necessities is the issue, not the birth rate.