-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution vs. Creation: Are we overpopulating?
- Thread starter Heidi
- Start date
JerryL
Well-Known Member
We were disussing the appeal to authority fallacy of believing what you read, which is reasonably on-topic as it was the foundation of your argument regarding whether the population was correct for the age.Mark1615 said:
BTW, there are an awful lot of creatures wuth faster generations than people. For example, horses. Are there more horses than people? Is it possible then that population has controls other than simple math?
I think some countries are definitely overpopulated because they do not have enough resources or wealth to support their populations which results in starvation or malnutrition and a large poor population.
Other countries have a plethora of wealth and can therefore afford to consume large amounts of resources. These countries, I don't think, are overpopulated.
Other countries have a plethora of wealth and can therefore afford to consume large amounts of resources. These countries, I don't think, are overpopulated.
It is funny someone should finally bring up my favorite topic "overpopulation". I believe that Christianity has played a big part in the problem, but it is not the only cause. Our dilemma is caused by the fact that we are all becoming greedy. We all want to be wealthy, at any cost, and it is Mother Earth who suffers. The Church, the politicians, businessmen, all gain from the masses, more people is more money. That is the problem. No one really cares. Every year, I have more problems with conflicts with others. The reason for this is that there are more and more people to have problems with. If you and I were the only people on the planet.......how long would it take to run into each other? If there were less people, how many animals would have no problems? How many natural habitats would be saved? Every day, I look around and see more and more useless people spawning even more and more useless people.....and I can only think of the fact that we must stop overpopulation. When you think about it.....you can prevent it by controlling population........or let it control itself like it has throughout history......war......disease....murder. I prefer prevention.Heidi said:
Huajiro, how do you think Christianity has caused problems in the population?
I think it's a very broad generalization to say everyone wants to be wealthy, let alone at any cost. That simply is not true. There are lots who do want to be wealthy. And there are fewer lots who want to be wealthy at any cost.
I agree that many natural habitats would be saved and many animals would be saved from extinction if there were fewer people. But I think a part of the problem is people in most developed countries, esp. the U.S., consume so much that it has many adverse effects on the Earth's ecosystems.
Also, poor countries have many adverse effects on their local environments when their is a large population and few available resources. In those countries, population control by means of birth control, abstinence, and planned parenthood would be very beneficial.
e.g. Haiti http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/haiti/environment.html
Try this link: http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/573.html
it shows how poverty is linked to environmental degradation.
I think it's a very broad generalization to say everyone wants to be wealthy, let alone at any cost. That simply is not true. There are lots who do want to be wealthy. And there are fewer lots who want to be wealthy at any cost.
I agree that many natural habitats would be saved and many animals would be saved from extinction if there were fewer people. But I think a part of the problem is people in most developed countries, esp. the U.S., consume so much that it has many adverse effects on the Earth's ecosystems.
Also, poor countries have many adverse effects on their local environments when their is a large population and few available resources. In those countries, population control by means of birth control, abstinence, and planned parenthood would be very beneficial.
e.g. Haiti http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/haiti/environment.html
Try this link: http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/573.html
it shows how poverty is linked to environmental degradation.
Ryan2065
Well-Known Member
ANd just to let you know, my math is flawless! =)Mark1615 said:
You took 2.5 as the number of children per couple. Assuming each couple is a man and a woman the growth rate per generation would be 1.25 (2.5/2). Then you take a starting generation, and then keep multiplying it by 1.25 until you get the number of generations you were wanting. So basically...
2*1.25^(insert number of generations you want here)=the approx number for the population today.
Please excuse my generalizations, but if you pay attention to the statements, there is a lot of truth to them. My statement about Christianity having something to do with it is true..."The Bible" does say that we should "be fruitful and multiply".....some of us understand that this was after the Great Flood.....and was supposed to help repopulate the Earth, but the problem is, that it didn't stop.matey said:
The wealthier countries affect the poorer countries in that we destroy their cultures....the US especially wants this, as our main religion is the dollar and our churches are McDonald's.
Overpopulation in itself is a problem, but when you promote business like we do here in the US, you are causing people to want things that they don't normally think they need. Desire creates consumption, which in turn creates a lack of natural resources.
If you have any arguments against the above, please keep in mind that I have lived all over the US and México, so I do know what i am talking about.
I don't believe in birth control, but a do believe in prevention.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
That puts you in a sticky wicket doesn't it? Abstinance within marraige is forbiddin by Paul "except for a time" and marriage is dictated by lust which Paul says God simply gives some and not others.
If lust is instilled by God, and marriage is the course of action for lust (for it's better to marry than burn with passion) and regular sex is a requirement of marraige, and you don't condone BC, how would you effect population? Go back to the custom of burying them face down in the sand?
I excuse your generalizations, I just don't like generalizations, so I felt compelled to remark on them. Although I know I use them too.huajiro said:
I agree with you that the idea in Christianity "to be fruitful and multiply" does add to the increasing population, especially in poorer countries where I think birth control might not be advocated or supported. And I think people in the poor countries have more children in say, rural areas, where a large family is useful for essential work to support the family. Further, when there are large families in poor countries, this adds to the strain on the environment as they struggle to survive.
I would argue that the dollar itself is not a religion, rather materialism seems to be. I think that it is what you do with the dollar, i.e. spend on "stuff". I think the dollar is fantastic, because it is a reward for your hard work, and if you work for it, you deserve it. But I also think you should spend your money wisely and keep away from being materialistic.
When you say you are causing people to "want things they don't normally think they need", it reminds me of a line in a rage against the machine song "Bullet in the Head" "believin' all the lies that they tellin' ya, buyin' all the products that they sellin' ya.." And I agree, I know I've bought lots of things I don't need.
Things like McDonald's, "gas-guzzling" SUV's, and what not, definitely do add to depletion of non-renewable and renewable (which can be depleted when used faster than they are replaced) resources. And it would be great if that process of depletion could be slowed down so as to extend our time to use what we have left; save some for future generations.
Because we seem to be depleting some of our resources faster than they can be replaced, I think the carrying capacity for life on Earth will be decreased; i.e. we will be overpopulated if we use more resources than we actually need.
I was curious about that too. How do you prevent conception without birth control? Even the "Timing" method is a method of birth control.
Also, as a species we are overpopulated, even if some areas seem less populated than others. We have destroyed much of the Earth and her resources and animals to make room for ourselves. We single-handedly have caused the extincion of millions of species (including insects, if you're wondering about the number) and we continue to cause many more as we grow. We have polluted the waters and killed off so many of the trees. Did you know that dinosaurs had very tiny lungs proportionately to their body size? Because thay has more trees and plants to produce the oxygen. A higher level of oxygen meant smaller lungs could do the work.
Did you also know that by continuing to grow and spread out, we are eventually going to kill ourselves? 7000 of the world's different medicines today come from the rain forests, which hold 160,000 of the worlds 250,000 species of plants. As we bulldoze rain forests, we lose medicinal trees as well as the possibility of finding other medicines among them. There could be a cure for cancer sitting right there waiting to be discovered.
We need to start being responsible for our numbers. We're still in our infancy as a species as we've only been here for approximately 30,000 to 50,000 years. (as has been actually proven) We're like a small child with the intelligence to pull a chair to the hot stove to see what's up there, but not intelligent enough to realize the consequences of doing so. We've made mistakes as humans, just like a child and we're now trying to correct them. ie: dumping waste into the oceans, swelling landfills , pollution and so on. We're finally starting to mature enough as a species to try to do something about it. But the mistake we're making now, is overpopulating the planet.
Also, as a species we are overpopulated, even if some areas seem less populated than others. We have destroyed much of the Earth and her resources and animals to make room for ourselves. We single-handedly have caused the extincion of millions of species (including insects, if you're wondering about the number) and we continue to cause many more as we grow. We have polluted the waters and killed off so many of the trees. Did you know that dinosaurs had very tiny lungs proportionately to their body size? Because thay has more trees and plants to produce the oxygen. A higher level of oxygen meant smaller lungs could do the work.
Did you also know that by continuing to grow and spread out, we are eventually going to kill ourselves? 7000 of the world's different medicines today come from the rain forests, which hold 160,000 of the worlds 250,000 species of plants. As we bulldoze rain forests, we lose medicinal trees as well as the possibility of finding other medicines among them. There could be a cure for cancer sitting right there waiting to be discovered.
We need to start being responsible for our numbers. We're still in our infancy as a species as we've only been here for approximately 30,000 to 50,000 years. (as has been actually proven) We're like a small child with the intelligence to pull a chair to the hot stove to see what's up there, but not intelligent enough to realize the consequences of doing so. We've made mistakes as humans, just like a child and we're now trying to correct them. ie: dumping waste into the oceans, swelling landfills , pollution and so on. We're finally starting to mature enough as a species to try to do something about it. But the mistake we're making now, is overpopulating the planet.
Overpopulation has everything to do with evolution or creation. If we evolved to our current state, there are no boundaries to which we could continue to evolve with the exception that we don't kill ourselves off by overpopulating. If we were created by God, then we are limited to His plan and we are told that we can go forth and multiply and He will provide for us. We are also told that we have dominion over the animals, which would then give us the right to populate as much as we can without regards for the well-being of the planet as God would ensure our survival until He decides we should be judged (which would be Judgement Day). See what I'm getting at?
I agree overpopulation is a problem. But does it have to be? I think if we go about survival with a more Earth manageable plan, we can support more people than we have on this planet today. How? Maybe finding ways to use less resources; better efficiency, less waste, less destruction.Heidi said:
God gave us dominion over the Earth, according to the Bible. How do we go about dominizing, or ruling the Earth? Do we do it wisely? Or do we do it destructively?
"We are also told that we have dominion over the animals, which would then give us the right to populate as much as we can without regards for the well-being of the planet as God would ensure our survival until..." Quoth Heidi
That doesn't sound like a very wise way to have dominion over this living spaceship we call Earth. I know that's not what you believe according to what you've stated, but I think your interpretation of what the Bible says is wrong or misperceived. What kind of rulers would we be if we did not regard the well-being of the planet? I say we would be very poor rulers of this world if we did not regard the well-being of this world. So I don't think that God meant for man to reproduce without regards to our well-being. As we can see today, we have made and continue to make poor choices as to how to "rule" this planet as the dominant species. I think greed is a big part of this. People doing anything to make a buck or two or a billion.
I don't think there is anything wrong to make lots of money, but when it is done in a way that is detrimental to humans and the planet, you're not lookin' out for your neighbor. That is sinful, to speak in terms of the Bible.
So if what you are getting at is that as judgement day comes (in the eyes of those who believe they know), people are going to consume, consume, consume, I think that would be an unwise way still go about things. That seems like it would be very materialistic and greedy, or sinful to speak in terms of the Bible.
So I don't think overpopulation is the sole problem. I think living an indulgent, overly materialistic life is more of a problem. If we simply reduce the population by means of population control ( a horrible idea in my eyes) what does that do to solve our problems with environmental and ecological destruction?
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
The mountains of skeletons you'd be standing on would assume bone doesn't decompose? Many of the skeletons in the Titanic cemetary are largely gone due to environmental conditions...a body is far more likely to 'return to the dust from whence it came', than not.Mark1615 said:
So, in this spirit of believing the researched and printed matter, if I were to give you a book that told you that you could light a particular coloured candle and achieve a desired result, would you unreservedly believe what you read, based on the fact that someone researched it and published a book?
In México (for example), people tend to have more children because:matey said:
1) Most people are Catholic and the Catholic Church's stance is against birth control.
2) Social Security is almost non-existant, more children means more security.
3) It actually seems to have become part of the "culture" to have larger families....once that happens, everyone does it without thinking about the consequences.
4) Many people are just ignorant to the effect it has.
The problem is, that we all just keep going and going. As long as "Man" is healthy, it seems that we will trudge on, destroying as much of this planet as we can, until we are gone.matey said:
I agree, however, I believe the only way to help the planet is to reduce the human population. No living being destroys, kills, contaminates like us. Otherwise, we would have to change our lifestyles. A vegetarian diet is more environmentally-friendly......no cars.....no factories.....in essence, we would be animals again......that is the only way.matey said:
M
Majikthise
Guest
Humans have always found new territories when population growth threatened our living conditions. It's time to start moving out to new frontiers. Right now the spirit of exploration is at an all time low.