Confronting Overpopulation
Is overpopulation a problem? An honest answer is it may well be. This is a situation that we need to address but many parts of the Church has failed to do so. Indeed, some members of the Church actively deny there is a problem.
First, some basic facts. Currently, world population is just short of 7 billion; demographers tell us that the 7th billion person will be born some time in 2011. At the dawn of the 20th century, world population was about 1.5 billion, and for most of the 20th century it showed exponential growth: 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974. Population growth began to slow, but it still grew rapidly: 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999. It seems paradoxical, but even though population growth rates have slowed tremendously in the past 20 years, total population will continue to grow. (For the mathematically inclined, this can be seen by examining the behavior of the logistic equation after it passes the point of maximum growth rate.) Current predictions are that world population will continue to grow for the next 40-50 years, peaking at some where between 8.5 billion and 10 billion people in 2050-2060. At that point, barring further changes, population should stabilize or decrease, as reproduction rates stabilize at or below replacement rate (i.e., approximately 2.1 children per couple, the birth rate just sufficient to replace the existing population as it dies off). Many parts of the world, including western Europe and China, are already below replacement rate, and the prediction is that higher growth rates elsewhere will decline to this level in the next few decades.
Where do the problems lie? To understand them we cannot look just at population: we have to look on three axes: population, consumption and technology. To understand the first two, contrast the U.S. with sub-Saharan Africa. In the U.S. population is growing slowly, about 0.9% a year. However, each of these people consumes world resources (food, fossil fuel, water, etc.) at an extremely high rate, so they have a much bigger impact per capita. In Africa, the growth rate is more than double (around 2% depending on the country), however, each of these individuals will consume just a fraction of what each new American consumes, so their marginal impact is much less. Technology plays a role, because it has only been through technology, in particular advances in medicine and the cheap energy provided by fossil fuels, that have allowed populations to expand.
Is the world over-populated now? No, in the sense that there is enough food and water to feed everyone, and enough energy to sustain the status quo. However, it is uncertain (perhaps even doubtful)–given the threats of climate change, soil erosion, and depletion of water supplies and fossil fuels—whether the status quo can be maintained. Technology is the wildcard, since every previous boom in population has been aided by advances in technology. However, with the depletion of cheap energy from fossil fuels and the need, driven by climate change, to cut back on fossil fuels before they run out, it is not obvious that human ingenuity will, deus ex machina, produce solutions to these problems. It is certainly something I would work towards, but would not want to count on uncritically.
Will a world of 9 billion people be over-populated? Again, the concerns above about scarce resources will only be exacerbated by an increase in population. Further, looking along the axes of population and consumption, we have to ask how these 9 billion people will be supported. It is estimated that the world could feed 9 billion people; doing so equitably would require the first world (and prosperous developing nations like China) to scale back their consumption of meat considerably. The same applies to other forms of consumption: for the first world to maintain its current levels of consumption while the population expands by another 2 billion people means that the vast majority of people in the world will continue to get by on very little, while the select few (say 1-1.5 billion people in North America, Europe and Japan and a few other enclaves) consume the vast majority of the world’s resources. (Images of the rich man and Lazarus naturally present themselves.)
I think that this outline establishes that over-population is at least potentially a very serious problem, one which impacts upon all people and upon the Earth itself. But the Catholic Church seems to be in denial, arguing, sometimes vociferously, that it is not a problem. Two documents, both from Pro-Life Secretariat of the USCCB, make this point clear. The first is called The Myth of Over-Population. The second is called Ten Great Reasons to Have Another Child. While the latter could be interpreted as only arguing against the trend of childless or single child families, but the arguments about the impending “population crash” suggest otherwise. Also, anecdotally, the broader context suggests that world population is not an issue for some Catholics. The daughter of friends of mine (quite conservative Catholics) was interested in going to the University of Steubenville, and she and her mother went for a visit. The mother told me that during the parent events many of the moms were bragging about the size of their families (8 to 10 kids) and she felt a real sense of scorn when she announced she had two children.
Turning to the first article, the bulk of it is not devoted to over-population per se, but rather to criticizing the coercive means (abortion and forced sterilizations) adopted in some places (such as China and India) to combat it. It does not logically follow from the fact that the solution is flawed that the problem does not exist. Neither, in a related vein, does the fact that some people who raise concerns about over-population supported eugenics or other racist ideas. By way of analogy: that Hitler was a vegetarian says nothing about the ethical nature of vegetarianism.
The remainder of the article lays out a series of facile arguments that really do not work. The first is technological optimism: up until now we have always been able to use technology to expand our resource supply, so we always will be able to do so. As I noted above, there are credible reasons for thinking otherwise. The second is a mis-analysis of demographic trends. It points out, correctly, that many countries, such as France, lowered their population growth rate “naturally” and this will happen everywhere without intervention or concern. However, it is worth noting that France in the 19th century accomplished this by widespread use of contraception (either barrier methods or the withdrawal method). Noonan discusses the Church’s response to this in great detail in his book on contraception. The third in the peroration, is what I call the “there is plenty of room” argument:
Next time you are in an airplane flying virtually anywhere in the world, even in the very populous United States, look down from on high and what you will see is a remarkably empty planet straining to be made a garden by more of us.
This is a variant of the technological optimism argument, but it is so prevalent that it needs to be addressed separately. Variations are legion: the world population could comfortably live in Texas, Montana, the LA basin, with “acceptable” population densities. The calculations supporting these arguments all ignore infrastructure needs (roads, schools, stores) and the question of resources: we can put everyone in Texas, but there isn’t enough water in Texas for them all. We can redistribute population over the entire planet with a population density less than France, but if we simply cannot produce enough food for them, then population density is moot.
How to move forward? I am sure that I am going to be criticized vociferously about this post. Thoughtful responses are welcome: slams and nasty attacks will go in the trash without comment. As a first step, I would propose looking more closely at one sentence written by Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate:
Due attention must obviously be given to responsible procreation, which among other things has a positive contribution to make to integral human development.
How, in light of the real issues outlined above, should we understand “responsible procreation”?
Comments are closed.
My ideological predisposition and my study of demographic lead me to be sympathetic to David’s argument. There is a very powerful counterstory, however, that suggest that problematic population *decline* is a more likely outcome of demographic changes…including projected population decline in third world countries. Citation: http://demographicwinter.com/index.html
The arguments advanced by Demographic Winter are debunked in some progressive quarters because of the conservative bona fides of some of its funders. For those who don’t feel compelled to deconstruct the ideas because of their disagreeable political provenance, Demographic Winter’s argument is intriguing. It is all the more pursuasive because the scientists quoted are former ‘population bomb’ devotees who are extraordinarily uncomfortable with where the science has led them!
Yes, one of the difficulties here is that it can be difficult to pick a narrative given that everyone seems to have a horse in this race. Not being a demographer means, often, just picking the story you like best for other reasons.
I for one, think we may well be in for a demographic collapse. I believe this because there are pockets where it is already undeniably happening.
I don’t however, draw from that belief the conclusion that we don’t need to be very concerned about our resource consumption. Gross numbers actually mean quite little when some populations consume resources at rates 10 and 20 and 30 times greater than other populations.
As I stated below, while I view David’d estimates to be a tad rosy, I do however accept some of the ideas (as do many others) posed by Demographic Winter and do feel that in the short term 5-10 years some countries will experience some major problems (Japan comes to mind) as a result of an aging population. It does appear that there is a leveling as opposed to a steady increase in our future.
The problem with Demographic Winter is a thing called peer review and I have not been able to find any accredited institution to back up their core premise. While I do no longer see the high end or the most wild estimates of just 10 years ago coming to fruition, we are still facing something on the order of between 9 and 15 billion people by 2050-2060 and that presumes that the trajectory that now appears to be declining does not reverse course.
The problem now is not one of population so much as it is available resources for what we have as a population. This requires some time to research and you cannot just go over to your favorite blog and get what you need, you have to go back to source data either through government data or accredited institutions.
Unfortunately most think tanks and blogs are largely just fronts for associations or corporations with financial interests in a particular view, and this includes those from the left and the right of the spectrum.
If you take the time to look into all the issues I addressed in my comment below as I did, you will discover that in some areas we are already bumping real close to the stress limits. In other cases we have some time, but that is only if conditions remain stable in all areas that might affect supplies.
That is a massive amount of gambling with what we as Catholics consider to be billions of precious lives.
Ugh.
I would say your figures for a top end of 8-10 billion are a tad conservative as I am still hearing figures of 12 – 15 billion, but most data does show it slowing, possibly declining (not that we can accurately predict if or when it might surge again). Otherwise your data on population is correct.
When we get to the consumption side you feel that we have adequate resources to maintain 8-9 billion providing there are no strains on the system such as climate change, soil erosion, and depletion of water supplies and fossil fuels.
I need to point out that we have depleted over 90% of our fish stocks and I would point you to many tests showing that toxins (including very heavy metals) are rapidly rising in our oceans, which could alter the equation.
Speaking of metals we also have a serious problem with many key minerals (magnesium being one of them) and these minerals should not be left out of your concerns. Hoarding of resources for which China is currently a huge culprit and wars were not factored in as well.
Anyone viewing your stats might be inclined to call you an alarmist but frankly, you have painted a rather rosy picture that still shows the earth right on the edge of it’s capacity to deal with humans.
Frankly I also agree that the Church has not adequately rose to the occasion, but then I see Noonan’s totally delusional clap trap:
“Next time you are in an airplane flying virtually anywhere in the world, even in the very populous United States, look down from on high and what you will see is a remarkably empty planet straining to be made a garden by more of us.”
I urge everyone to take the time to do a Google search and find satellite photo comparisons from 40 years ago to today. What you will see is horrifying. Now download a copy of Google Earth. Use the ruler function and pick anywhere in Europe or the U.S. start checking how many spots you can do a full rotation (360 degrees) from a start spot and (stretching the ruler 20 or if you want to be generous, 10 miles miles away from your start) and not hit some form of human development. 40 years ago, you could swing around on a radius of 50 miles in many places and not hit development and I know because I was here and having to wait for a restroom on cross country trips.
Now this is just visible evidence and does not reflect all I have talked about above or what David spoke of in his piece but when you add both together one has to start asking, “GEE isn’t there some sort of maximum load?”
Now I am going to wait a bit and see how people respond to this story before I get into resolutions. The good news is I have good news, but only if humans take some actions that they currently have not seen fit to do. The better news is none of the solutions require overhauling Church doctrine, in fact, we do not even have to change it all.
But I want to see how people respond to this story first.
[Editorial correction: the quote above is not from Noonan: the author of the USCCB piece is Austin Ruse.]
I’m thinking my best bet here is to make a series of short notes so that those interested can engage one issue at a time.
First of all, the question is important. No matter where one comes down on it, I think we should all thank you for bringing it up. It is something Catholics need to be talking about. And something we need to try to do without just repeating ideological talking points. I’m not sure if you saw my earlier related post on population and the environment.
Second, I think we should all join a religion where people are encouraged to have large families (because resource use is much more efficient when several people share a home), but which compensates for this by encouraging as many people as possible to make permanent vows not to reproduce. ;)
Apologies. I am not the one who wrote the all encompassing post:) It at least should be broken up into three parts and then broken down from there. I shall try and focus on segments from henceforth.
Ah yes do we need “living space”? An assumption that has been around for a long time starting in Germany in the late 19th century early 20th century.
——————
I believe the current UN prediction is stability starting about 2050.
——————————
Back when I was an undergrad the Department in it’s never ending effort to teach research skills would send students to the library to fact check current books that students would find relevant. That year it was ”The Hungry Planet” and “The Popualtion Bomb” to of the first books warning of over population. Well the page numbers were in the correct sequence, the publisher address was correct, as the price. Almot every other number in the books did not check out, overstating the case by at least a magnitude of 10. In otherwords despite their wide influence they were hatchet jobs.
Since then, while some of the anti-over population material is just as bad, I have yet to find a credible justification that can hold up once I start checking. For the kind of actions proposed because of “over population” the burden of proof is on those claiming over population. I have yet to see it.
——————-
I went through a web site by primere population contol orgaztion where they estimated the current “over population” by country. Rather doubtful numbers since they reported variables as constants. But the gave the Sudan a population of 6 million people, which by coincidence is the population of Darfur. I am sure no one is intentionally advocating genocide to fight overpopulation, but one could suppose that much of the international communities slow response to the genocide in Darfur, is that despite hating the method they like the results?
I think we should be able to condemn coercive population control measures and at the same time face up to the real challenges that our resource consumption (in which large populations are one factor) places upon us.
The fact that there are very few people or organizations doing both of these is a worrying sign. It seems to me that it proves this battle is being fought on purely ideological lines, and that virtually guarantees it will be lost by both sides.
This is somewhere the Catholic Church could show some real leadership. Caritas in Veriate isn’t a bad start, in my view.
Well said.
The “plenty of room” argument is an interesting one, if anyone actually bothered to make it. Just stating that you could fit x number of people in Texas doesn’t prove a thing, as you note. Saying that you fly over lots of potential gardens is pretty transparent sophistry. The only people who find that convincing are those who want to.
The “plenty of room argument” makers need to seriously tell us how many people they think the earth can support and then give us the hard data. How much water is there? How much food can we produce sustainably? How much fuel?
Most of our planet is covered in salt water. Another good chunk is covered with ice. Another good chunk is desert. Another mountain ranges.
How much land do we need to grow our food? How much to support wildlife? Or does wildlife not count in this equation?
Anyone know what our likelihood of colonizing another planet is standing at?
42
All that said, I don’t think we’re going to run out of room. It’s pretty clear the population will peak soon and start to decline. What is really worrisome to me is not that we have too many people. What bothers me is the amount of resources some of us use. This isn’t a personal issue, but a cultural one. Even the most conscientious westerner is going to use way more resources than his third-world counterpart.
I would actually be in favour of pretty radical government intervention in terms of city planning (suburbs are the devil!), garbage quotas, mandated fuel efficiency etc. etc.
I cannot agree with those who argue against such things because they are perceived as detrimental to the economy. As true as that may be in the short run, in the long run nothing will ruin the economy like living beyond our means for a couple more generations.
This is something else Catholics can take leadership on. If you want big families, good. Show the rest of the culture how efficient you can be, and support public policy that will force the culture as a whole to be more efficient.
There is a documentary about a large Catholic family living in suburban Canada with a strict garbage quota. They never used their full quota and, in fact, lent the remainder to their neighbors who had 1 or 2 kids.
This does need to mainly be about resources. BTW I am sure you are aware that Catholics are not required to breed like rats. Husbands and wives have been left that decision to themselves by the Church..
As far as I know we are required to breed like humans. ;)
You know what I meant. How are things going for you with the stand-up comedy act?
Way to go with the rat reference!
Catholics aren’t the only ones who have have been accused of breeding like rats. This particular piece of propaganda has a long history of being used to justify the elimination of “undesirables”.
I personally am very fond of rats. I also mentioned chickens in his thread.
Words only have power to offend you if you allow them to. My intent was not offend, and there was a larger point that I ask that you not overlook.
We are not required to breed by our Church. Focus on that.
you’ve got my vote.
Nope. The UN’s low estimate is historically the most accurate. That caps us at 8 mill and then the number starts dropping. NOTHING indicates that number starts rising again. The crisis is depopulation. But in the midst of a child-hating culture, Cruz wants to tell people they are irresponsible for birthing. In the midst of the US’s contraceptive oppression and imperialism of the dark skinned and the third world, he calls for even more reduction. Invade Iraq–outrageous! Sterilize Africa–responsible! That’s Catholicism? Sick.
Actually, “Cruz” never said anything about calling people irresponsible for birthing. He suggested Catholics need to have this conversation. His conclusions were pretty open-ended.
Your rhetoric doesn’t help your position. As St. Frances de Sales put it, you’ll catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrel of vinegar.
Brett, yes he did. This debate lives in a context. We DO live in a society that overwhelmingly tells families with 3 or more kids they are doing something wrong. And Cruz’s response is to suggest that the 10 kid Steubenville parents are the ones neglecting responsibility. He suggested it Brett. “But he didn’t SAY that!” Please read context.
Even more troubling, the people making Cruz’ exact arguments have for the past 40+ years since the Nixon administration’s NSSM 200 been using these exact arguments about too many people and not enough resources and predictions of global collapse to use Western financial and foreign policy impose contraception on poor dark countries. It is oppression. I’m not just talking about “coercive” methods. Rich Westerners declaring that the world needs to have fewer people, when ALL birthrates producing more people are in poorer darker-skinned countries, have bolstered and under Secretary Clinton continue to bolster contraceptive imperialism, the promotion of population reduction even my “non-coercive” means. All US foreign policy pushing of birth control on non-first-world nations is inherently financially coercive, whether or not women are held down and sterilized. That isn’t hyperbole. It is fact. To say as Cruz does, here are the arguments, the same used by all these imperialists, and IN LIGHT OF THESE how are to we understand “responsible” (and NOT responsible) procreation, is not a neutral statement. On NO OTHER LIBERAL issue would such implications be tolerated. Your honey approach didn’t get any but one person to agree to excluding even overtly coercive methods.
So let’s propose positive considerations. Can we all agree, yes or no, that “responsible procreation” condemns U.S. foreign policy promoting contraception, birth control, and abortion around the world, “coercive” or not?
Perhaps we can also agree that “responsible procreation” means having lots and lots of children in intact loving marriages and raising them (education is part of procreation, don’t forget) to be moral, virtuous members of society. Is that responsible or irresponsible? Can we agree that having more kids in stable intact families cannot be called irresponsible?
And we are going to cap at 8 billion or so and then begin dropping, with no end to the drop. Having lots of kids now, to offset the drop later this century, is the most responsible thing we could do. Can we agree on that?
If everyone who does not parrot your position, or who critiques poor arguments made by those who hold your position, is determined to have said things they didn’t “by context,” then you have free reign to accuse anyone of anything. David simply did not propose any of the things that upset you (and me for that matter). I can read context, but I also take St., Ignatius’ injunction not to presume ill of my interlocutors seriously. He asked a question: What does responsible parenthood mean in this context? That is a fair question. He wasn’t presuming an answer. You are the one doing the presuming.
As for honey and vinegar, I’m not sure how you can tell how many people my “honey” approach has affected. Can you tell me, by comparison, how many of our readers have been positively affected by your vinegar?
As to what we can agree on, I cannot speak for others. I can agree that raising relatively large and stable families is, all things considered, a good in this context. I wonder if you can agree that it is incumbent upon these families (and all Catholics) to live simply and to endorse public policy that encourages others to do the same?
And yes I will agree with the need for sustainable living, in the context of people who have taken fertility imperialism off the table.
Done and done.
Done–by you, thanks–but thusfar only by you.
I’m waiting not for a parrot, but for some recognition of any kind that US population and birth control promotion, “coercive” or “not,” is unacceptable and by definition “irresponsible.” I think the massive fact of that promotion, and that promotion’s use of Cruz’s same arguments, requires this clarification in any such discussion. Still waiting.
I’m reasonably sure that David is against these things. But if you’re not sure, perhaps in the future you could ask him nicely instead of presuming the worst. Now you’ve put him into an awkward position. If he admits to the justice of your claims, you have framed it so that he is somehow reneging on his initial claims and thus he has lost an argument in which he never participated. In such an environment agreements get tough to come by.
Why not say something like: “David, as much as I can admit to the need for sustainable living, I am worried that many people use the argument for sustainable living to endorse things like coercive population control. I think this is pertinent to the issues raised in your post and was wondering what you thought about it since you didn’t mention it directly.”
I bet that would work a lot better than your current MO.
Matt,
Certainly there is some public record of those criticisms. Can you cite some for me?
And I as said, I am referring to taking President Bush to task who sent 8 budgets to Capitol Hill, each and every one asking for hundreds of millions of dollars for birth control — not some phony complaint that “government bureaucrats” are pushing birth control. The buck stops where Harry said it stops. No civil servant made the call to fund birth control.
Not just “coercive” population control. Western promotion of birth control through foreign policy. You are reasonably sure–I am glad for you, but the discussion lacks your private knowledge. Whether asking the question differently would yield different results is a fascinating question, but in my experience you haven’t elicited such results on this blog in the past. In any event he doesn’t have to back off any claim since as you have observed he didn’t explicitly make it. The only relevant issue is whether US population and birth control promotion, “coercive” or “not,” is unacceptable and by definition “irresponsible.” No one other than you has offered that point as a given principle. It is not a random one–this issue and its history are awash with contraceptive imperialism, and Catholics on the Left have supported US promotion of birth control. So I do not deduce the same conclusion from people’s reluctance to take this mechanism off the table.
I waited for eight years under the Bush Administration to see if there would be a word of criticism of the President for the US program he strongly promoted.
Then you weren’t listening.
Pope Benedict’s 2009 encyclical is very readable, if it does cover many different topics about social justice. Anti-baby? It talks about that. Too much consumption? it talks about that, too. Responsible urban planning? It talks about that as well. Ethical use of technology? Yup. Environmental stewarship? Ditto. “Intergral human development” is the theme tying it together, for the most part.
I don’t claim to know why, but the Church has not ignored these issues (or the various axes of the overall issue). The problem is that when the Church puts something like “Caritas et Veritate” out there, very few people actually read it, the media cherry-pick some bit about sex or triumphalism, virtually no one with a public following supports it, and the result is no widespread understanding, much less popular willingness to make an effort to follow the Church’s teaching.
I am not claiming to be exempt from these (and other) faults. But I am becoming better at noticing them than I used to be. So I’m hopeful.
Bruce, my chirp is not that the Church hasn’t addressed these issues, it with the level of emphasis given to each.
I am a huge fan of the writings of our Pope and have read them enough to know that he is well aware of the dangers confronting humans.
I am also not naive, and this is largely an issue of politics and will, and one does not want to disturb the chickens very much when one goes to retrieve the eggs from the coop in fear of limiting that day’s production.
That however is a short term view and if one keeps taking the short term view it eventually becomes the long term view.
We are clearly at max threshold right now, and I am not sure it is responsible to allow us to remain there or allow the ceiling to increase when one considers the resource side of the equation.
Whether anyone likes it or not we are gambling with billions of precious lives right now, and it is time to seek out the adults in the room.
The Church has a beautiful teaching on integral human development. This form of development needs to take place in both the “developed” and “developing” world.
By encouraging simple living and harmony with creation, we are able to develop mechanisms of sharing that promote the dignity of each human person and the common good. Our models of development cannot be focused on short-term industrialization but must be centered on long-term sustainability, true subsidiarity, and spiritual attentiveness.
As Pope Benedict XVI said in his 2010 World Day of Peace message:
“Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning.”
He goes on to explain:
“It is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-style and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. We can no longer do without a real change of outlook which will result in new life-styles, ‘in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments.’”
As we continue our journey, let us continually invoke the Spirit. As we bring forth an openness to God’s Spirit, we will be able to more faithfully discern actions for the common good.
It seems to me that whether or not overpopulation is, in some ways, more a local than a global question. In many places demographic winter has set in or will very shortly. The Church does teach that couples should take into account the needs of their nation when deciding on family size.
Finally, as I’ve hinted at above, it seems to me that the biggest issue here is consumption.
The gross numbers on population really mean very little when some of us use 30X the resources that others use. I mean, really, what’s the difference between 9 billion and 12 billion people? The truth is, you have no idea what the difference is unless you know how much those people are consuming.
If 20 billion (or more) South Africans could live on what 1 billion Canadians live on, we need to start talking seriously about cutting consumption. Recycling is good, but it only makes a tiny dent. We just need less stuff. If our economy runs on selling people more and more stuff, we need to change our economy.
Catholics should be interested in that. From a moral point of view, the same economy that is fueling the destruction of the planet is forming consciences that have no appreciation of delayed gratification, so interest in self-control, no interest in developing things of value for the long-term. Can anyone say contraception, divorce, abortion?
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head Brett. We cannot support 10 billion people in the manner of an urban Westerner. We can support a lot more people at a different standard of living.
One of the driving forces behind population growth is the decline in mortality rates and rising life expectancy. This reduces the portion of the population that produces goods and services. Ultimately it is a matter of the just distribution of goods.
I find the term “overpopulation” to be problematic. Which people should we get rid of if there are too many? Does God think there are too many? Which ones are the excess?
Ultimately when I see urban liberals driving Denali’s complaining about overpopulation and other people having children, I suspect selfish motives. They don’t want others competing for “their” resources.
We have eight children, and get to hear the criticisms all the time. The Church teaches that a large family is a blessing. We consume far fewer resources than a lot of families with no children or a couple of children. I bike to work, we only very rarely travel out of town, and we buy bulk unprocessed foods. For years we have raised meat rabbits which are far more efficient at producing protein than beef cattle, and we have an apple tree and raspberry bushes in our back yard. We get a ton of tomatoes every summer in our garden. We aren’t on government assistance, and we homeschool our children. But people who don’t know us act like we’re some kind of burden to them personally. Really? Please!
Where I live in Oregon do you know what we grow? Grass seed, shrubberies and Christmas trees! Another huge crop is hops for beer. I kid you not! Our agriculture is based on making nice lawns and front yards for people!
Rather than worrying about how many neighbors we have, perhaps we should worry about whether we are loving our neighbor to the fullest. And that would include limiting one’s consumption. That doesn’t mean the population level is unimportant, but given that we can devote a huge fertile valley to grass seed rather than wheat, and we can afford to have fifty percent of our cattle locked up as breeding stock and the remainder destined for market with a dismally poor protein conversion rate, I don’t think we are at a point where carrying capacity is really an issue.
Well spoken, sir.
I do so strongly agree it is important to address the issue of distribution of resources. That said, with some of our resources we are at a point where we have just enough pie for 12 people and we are looking at adding say 2 or 3 more people to the house.
In these areas it will not be enough say that everybody has to eat less pie, because there are areas (minerals and energy globally and water regionally) where 12 people need to consume the same amount of pie they always have.
There is no straight jacket on Catholics demanding a certain number of births per family, or for that matter, any at all.
We can address many of our issues through distribution but at some point we have to break down and look at the numbers we are bringing into the house. Some point for me, was yesterday.
The Lord Give You Peace:
You invited us to reflect upon the Pope’s one sentence in Caritas in Veritate. Might I suggest the full section (only two paragraphs) for a more clear understanding.
44. The notion of rights and duties in development must also take account of the problems associated with population growth. This is a very important aspect of authentic development, since it concerns the inalienable values of life and the family. To consider population increase as the primary cause of underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view. Suffice it to consider, on the one hand, the significant reduction in infant mortality and the rise in average life expectancy found in economically developed countries, and on the other hand, the signs of crisis observable in societies that are registering an alarming decline in their birth rate. Due attention must obviously be given to responsible procreation, which among other things has a positive contribution to make to integral human development. The Church, in her concern for man’s authentic development, urges him to have full respect for human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of procreation. This would be to impoverish and disregard the deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be acknowledged and responsibly appropriated not only by individuals but also by the community. It is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control. In either case materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and individuals are ultimately subjected to various forms of violence. Against such policies, there is a need to defend the primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality, as opposed to the State and its restrictive policies, and to ensure that parents are suitably prepared to undertake their responsibilities.
Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness. It is thus becoming a social and even economic necessity once more to hold up to future generations the beauty of marriage and the family, and the fact that these institutions correspond to the deepest needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society, and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs, while respecting its essentially relational character.
Hoping you recover from your accident quickly. Peace and all good.
I myself have never called for mandatory birth control, and frankly see it possible to deal with our issues through purely voluntary means.
Brett, that demographic winter is already happening.
I would advise everyone present and future people to read this to check out the site for the documentary series “Demographic Winter ” and it’s 2nd part “Demographic Bomb.” Buy the set if you can afford it.
http://demographicwinter.com/index.html
I had the pleasure of seeing the 1st part at a lecture at U of T St. Mike’s College residence.
In a nutshell from the documentary, we’re getting our population shrinkage from a number of factors:
- Working educated females find it too costly career wise to leave their jobs to start a family
- Richer economies spending more per child so it’s disadvantageous to have big familes
- Free Sex movement/Sexual Liberation (including contraception and revolution)
- Non-marital cohabitation
- No Fault Divorces (and the heavy penalty Men pay from them) leading to …
- Men no longer willing to assume marital responsibilities b/c of immaturity from a self-importance culture, costs of divorce (50% marriage failure rate), etc.
- the continual push of theories like the “we’re running out of food” theory and “Carbon Footprint” theory or whatever the environmentalists throw at us.
In the DW (part 1), in fact it’s already happening with Japan as the perfect example, because they did not have a post World War II population explosion.
Clearly Brett has been posting the majority of the time right now, but of all the stuff said so far, here’s what is SO TRUE and I agree 200% on:
“…we should be able to condemn coercive population control measures and at the same time face up to the real challenges that our resource consumption”
“I would actually be in favour of pretty radical government intervention in terms of city planning (suburbs are the devil!), garbage quotas, mandated fuel efficiency etc. etc.” –> Hmmm, perhaps we should live like in smaller cities/towns in Italy, perhaps, where it’s small streets and many large story houses all joined together in a small space?
“…. This is something else Catholics can take leadership on. If you want big families, good. Show the rest of the culture how efficient you can be, and support public policy that will force the culture as a whole to be more efficient.”
And best of all …
” … we should all join a religion where people are encouraged to have large families (because resource use is much more efficient when several people share a home), but which compensates for this by encouraging as many people as possible to make permanent vows not to reproduce. ;)” –> There is already a major one in existence, when its social teachings are ACTUALLY APPLIED. Hmmm, there’s only a handful of major world religions, so take an educated guess which one ;).
Also, anecdotally, the broader context suggests that world population is not an issue for some Catholics. The daughter of friends of mine (quite conservative Catholics) was interested in going to the University of Steubenville, and she and her mother went for a visit. The mother told me that during the parent events many of the moms were bragging about the size of their families (8 to 10 kids) and she felt a real sense of scorn when she announced she had two children.
The scorn and disdain here is absolutely unacceptable. No one knows the circumstances of another family, and every couple is entitled to absolute respect and deference in their discernment of their family’s size. And Scorn and disdain that go the opposite way – at the family with 10 kids – is also equally unacceptable. In my (anecdotal) experience, this type of scorn is more prevalent in society.
I agree that population is an important issue, but I tend to Brett’s position – that emphasis on consumption of resources and responsible stewardship of the earth’s resources is the key. A 1000 people responsibly using resources is the ideal versus 1 Paris Hilton consuming and wasting.
I think you will appreciate my comments on pie and chickens above, as I went with a decidedly rural theme today. Check into them and let me know what you think about them.
I am now well aware of your legitimate feelings about the scorn you have witnessed. We need to put them aside for the moment and focus on the value of the lives we have with us now, as well as to the quality of life they will lead.
I think if we do that we can succeed, but we cannot let our pain or suffering rule the discourse. Love must dominate my friend.
I think I will reply with quotes I gave in a different conversation on this topic, showing that there is room in Catholic thought to consider this issue:
ccc: 2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.
We can see how Pope Benedict answered a discussion on overpopulation, where he did not disagree, but proposed where he thinks a solution is to be found, which goes with what I have said that the issue is to find the proper solution:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060805_intervista_en.html
Then we can read statements from people like Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, who pointed out that urban centers are indeed being affected by increase in population and creating massive problems. Thus, he said:
The issue is real. Of course recognizing it can be real does not mean all suggested responses to it are legitimate.
I like B16′s quote, and I think the essence of it is here: “That is why the formation of the human person is the true recipe, the key to it all, I would say, and this is what the Church proposes.”
There are also many more quotes we can find; it’s been awhile since I discussed this issue with Austin Ruse, but I remember one was from Vatican II [and he was the one who pointed out such a quote was in Vatican II]. Yes, I think personalism is necessary in engaging this issue – and Pope Benedict is on to something with what he said — which is why I pointed it out. I think it will do good if we [collective humanity not just us on VN, who seem to have more agreement than not even if we debate] can see the issue and recognize its legitimate concerns while also recognizing tyranical solutions (such as in China, in Africa, etc) are wrong now as they were in the past. Indeed, I think this brings us back to what has been agreed upon by many here: this is an opportunity to engage the question of stewardship, and I hope more will think similarly once they look to the evidence.
Let’s agree to take every penny of US money spent on birth control and contraception and abortion and groups who promote the same, and spend it on clean water and housing in needful countries.
Agreed.
Can we also spend some on life saving medicines that contribute to overpopulation? Cause I’m all for that too.
Yes you can spend the birth control money on medicines too.
Hurray!
I can agree totally Matt, but do some research on just magnesium, that or fish stocks. We do need to address the problem you spoke of, but we have bigger fish to fry, and I do not think taking what is already a contentious battle in this country (abortion, birth control) and letting it get in the way of solving a very serious problem is a good idea itself.
We need to be finding common ground here, not drawing new battle lines.
“…I am sure that I am going to be criticized vociferously about this post.” LOL, convalescence is boring, isn’t it!
Seriously, I think the question you asked is an important one for us as Catholics and Christians to ponder. There has been a lot of good discussion in this thread.
My reaction to the initial post was trepidation and skepticism. I remember my first semester in college (1969) being confronted with a roommate’s poster showing a globe wallpapered with miserable crowded humanity and at the north pole a oversized Pope, crosier in hand, smiling in ecstasy. To this day I shun assertions that point to us waking up in cataclysm; having instead a reasonable hope that we make gradual and considered adaptations to difficult challenges.
I lack the conviction of drastic and quick policy changes because of the paradoxes and unintended consequences that always emerge. But I’m really encouraged by the Pope and the Church teachings that give us impetus for change that’s always mindful of human needs, aspirations, dignity and freedom.
I like the proposal that some commenter’s made to break this topic into smaller pieces regarding human development and several of the issues that the Holy Father brought up. The ‘problem of overpopulation’ to the extent that it does exist would naturally resolve as we develop bonds of solidarity and respect. From the Catholic standpoint we have plenty of territory to evangelize internally as we bring forth a real sense of communion and self-giving, while exhibiting some concrete sense of trust in Providence.
Finally to David, (who I know is a nearby fellow Secular Franciscan and look forward to meeting personally); for me this comes under the heading of ‘building a more fraternal world so that the kingdom of God may be brought about more effectively.’
I am going to respond in small bits: despite the convalescence it took a while to write the above post and I am still moving (mentally) in low gear.
Here I want to tackle the numbers, since Matt Bowman challenged them from below and Gisher from above. The UN World Population Prospects Report (hereafter WPP) in 2008 gives, essentially 4 projections for world population: they are called the low, medium, high and constant fertility variants. They themselves emphasize the medium variant. Here is the 2050 projection for each variant:
Low: 8.0 billion
Medium: 9.1 billion
High: 10.5 billion
Constant: 11.0 billion
The data and the underlying assumptions can be found here. I am not a demographer, so while I can understand their assumptions, and find both the low and constant variants unrealistic, I cannot give substantive critiques. However, I also went back and looked at the 2000 WPP for comparison. This report can be found here. To judge the accuracy of each variant, here is their projections for world population in 2010 and my interpolation of when population would reach 7 billion in this model (now believed to be reached some time in 2011):
Low: 6.7 billion 2016
Medium: 6.8 billion 2013
High: 6.9 billion 2011
Constant: 7.0 billion 2010
Based on this, the Medium variant seems a little low, but I am willing to stick with it since it is the preferred estimate of the WPP.
Also, it is worth noting, with respect to “demographic winter” that only the low variant reaches a maximum and begins to decline after 2050; the other variants are still increasing, though at a much lower rate. It would require digging into the raw data and their methodology to find when a maximum is attained in these variants.
The figures I have quoted here represent a range of publicly expressed figures for projected population. Personally I feel like 10 billion is a pretty good target.
That said to focus on what the high end may, or may not be obscures the focus on what the level is right now and just how close to max capacity we are on resources in too many areas.
You appropriately mentioned that there are many factors that are beyond our control (such as climate) that could drastically cut what resources are available. I think I might have even added a few threats to your already significant list of threats and variables.
I would hope that we both agree that we are not where we need to be, and that it is irresponsible to not start looking at resource allocation as well as population levels.
history shows that the UNPD’s medium variant projection has consistently overshot the mark. In 1992, for example, the UNPD’s medium variant projection turned out to overestimate world population in 2000 by over 200 million. Even the “low variant” projection was about 100 million too high, so fast and far have fertility rates fallen.
http://www.pop.org/content/population-reference-bureaus-twisted-statistics-571
David:
Perhaps ‘fine tuning’ population size is not possible. I wonder if we are left with ‘erring’ on one side vs. the other.
I suspect everyone can agree that rapid population explosion and resource exhaustion would result from reproduction at anything near ‘capacity’ in an era of decreasing infant mortality. Continuous openness to conception for women between puberty and menopause would have catastropic demographic consequences.
But there are significant social and economic risks when the zeitgeist is anti-natalist. Japan and South Korea as well Italy, Spain and Russia are cases in point. Individual and couple autonomy, workforce participation preferences, and hightened consumption combine to discourage parenting and produce a insupportably aged population skew.
I ‘get’ the severity of the resource pressure imposed by indefinitely growing population. It seems to me, however, that the thread is underappreciating the risks of ‘overshooting.’ In developed economies, for example, we are observing the emergence of a set of expectations about career establishment and housing that delay conception until the mid 30s when fertility problems are increasingly encountered.
I also want to tackle the question of consumption. I agree with various posters, led by Brett, who put emphasis on consumption: this is integral to any discussion of overpopulation and is fundamental to the Catholic understanding of human development. However, I feel very strongly that we cannot restrict our discussion only to consumption while overlooking the total size of the population. There are two reasons for this: first, as someone (I believe Gisher) noted above, if resources are finite, then given any consumption level there is a finite maximum that can be supported. Reducing consumption in the developed world is critical, but it is not sufficient if population continues to grow.
Second, I think it is very easy to underestimate the rate of consumption in developed countries, both compared to the third world and in relation to what is sustainable. I have given this a great deal of thought, first in taking seriously the rule on poverty embraced by Secular Franciscans, and then in trying to calculate the “carbon footprint” of my family. This is hard, and the data is often contradictory, but general trends emerge: despite consuming a LOT less than the typical American family, we consume a lot more than a typical family in the developing world.
So if we are going to talk about consumption, we have to agree on what constitutes responsible levels of consumption, and then factor in the fact that if it is acceptable for us, then it is also acceptable for the 5 billion or so people who do not consume at that level, but for obvious reasons would like to, and by Catholic social teaching have the same right as we do.
This brings us back, then, to the question of population size.
I think population size should be discussed as well, especially on a local level.
One reason it is far down my list of priorities, however, is that everyone seems to agree that the earth’s population will start shrinking within the century. I’m not sure that we can do anything that isn’t radically immoral to speed that process. It may not be worth wringing our hands over. Other than a few places where things are urgent (Rwanda was radically overpopulated) I’m not even sure it’s desirable even if we could do it morally. Russia and Japan are in bad shape and getting worse.
Consumption, on the other hand must be dealt with whether the global population grows or shrinks. Even if there are only 5 billion of us, we can’t live like contemporary westerners.
I do so hope you are playing the role of devil’s advocate here Brett. There are many resources that are in fact finite. We are just one natural disaster away currently, from finding ourselves to be overextended on others that are maximized.
I appreciate your understanding that an intense focus needs to be placed upon resource management and allocation but I am shocked that you would wave of the same scrutiny on population levels.
Sorry gisher. It seems to me that lowering population levels in a meaningful way is something extremely difficult to do without engaging in radically immoral things. The good news is, it looks like it will go down of itself. (I guess, if you think about it, it goes down, not by itself, but by the spread of education for women etc. I’m all for that.)
Furthermore, lowering consumption in meaningful ways looks more doable and, far from requiring morally dubious means, it requires virtuous ones.
As has been stated already within this thread not all resources have infinite supplies therefor addressing the problem purely through efforts to lower consumption is not an adequate response.
As we are slated by the most conservative estimates to add 2 billion more humans to what we can barely sustain now, well before any “leveling” begins, actions are called for with all due respect.
I certainly would not call for radically immoral efforts but do think your suggestions on education will bear much fruit or should I have said less fruit:)
Also, it is precisely those populations that are shrinking that use the most resources. To really preserve resources, we don’t need to bring down the birth rate in the developing world, but in the developed world. That is already happening, in some cases drastically.
The US seems to be an exception here, but I don’t know how much Catholics are the ones bringing up the birth rate. My guess is that the 10-kid Catholic families are rare enough as to be statistically insignificant, though I am open to correction here.
But, even with the low birthrates in developed nations, the still need to radically cut consumption. Catholics can be leaders here. A Franciscan spirituality seems especially well-suited to this task.
With regards to minerals for example, that is a global resource and lowering the population just in Africa will not address the problem.
With other resources this may be one resolution but when we are talking about a pool that all of us globally consume from (and we have several of them) regional reductions will not work.
I might add that Catholics need to view the globe as a place where all humans live and in that spirit, the rest of the world should be asking for sacrifice from non-Catholics as well.
I certainly wasn’t talking about lowering Africa’s population! Another 2 billion Africans won’t put near the dent in our mineral supplies that 200 million North Americans will.
Well fantastic. Now maybe we can go beyond talk and move into action. I think they call that the “hard part”.
In what way does it “bring us back to the question of population size”? In what way does it not? U.S. promotion of birth control in foreign policy, or definitely not? This is like saying after the civil war that freedom for the negro brings us back to the question of population size, without ever qualifying what you are talking about or explicitly excluding the various eugenic proposals already in wide practice.
Here’s my honest question to David and gisher and others. Let’s suppose that we are 100 years in the future, and the world is truly overpopulated. What do you think is the solution?
Thales my thinking is that we have too many people right now, and the reason I suggest that is I do not like the risks we face currently. And the amount of risks escalate with each passing year.
40 years from now it is very likely we will add 3 billion more to the 7 we have now.
Solutions? Present the truth that our own Pope has already expressed (however carefully) , to the people. Not just Catholics but everyone. Then ask for voluntary reductions in family size.
That however will not be near enough to confront the threats from diminishing resources as we will still maintain an upward curve for at least 2 decades, even if everyone cuts back to just one child right now.
We may have to move millions of people around or construct gigantic projects to bring resources such as water to them. If you are familiar with what the Great Lakes States did when they locked down their water exclusively for their states, or the massive hoarding the Chinese are doing now with minerals, that is yet another problem we must deal with.
Honestly, I think we will face a point where allocation of resources will become mandatory, and I think at that point our current system of allowing the free markets to control distribution of resources will be dismantled. Either that or we are looking at resource wars.
Resources Thales is a very ugly picture for us if all nations do not sit down now and face the music. I frankly think this will not happen, and we will wind up facing either wars or dismantled markets.
As Dave mentioned, technology may come into play to save us in one area or more, but to rely on the hope of that, well Dave was correct, it is irresponsible.
To add to the resource issue, I happen to be connected to some venture capital guys who right now, are trying to figure out how to invest their money in water distribution. They have all expressed fear of actually owning the water itself as they see that owning the actual resource may wind up being a poor investment because they already see that as ripe for government takeovers.
“voluntary reductions in family size”
by what means
Rhythm method, unless you are aware of other acceptable methods I am not privy to.
There is certainly a finite amount of people that the earth can sustainably support. I imagine we would reach that amount very quickly if all couples raised the same kind of large, loving Catholic family that I was privileged to grow up in.
So, what’s the number? I have no idea. Experts have opinions. They may be wrong; they may be right. I would think it wise to err on the side of caution.At risk of sounding silly I have wondered if the development of a reasonably effective and licit form of birth control for Catholics at this particular stage of history might be providential.
Large families are good imho insofar as they contribute to the flourishing of life. When it becomes clear that they no longer do that, Catholics and all people of good will should limit the size of their families.
That being said, a huge part of me wants to have lots of children if I am lucky enough to get married. Children, I think, are good for my soul. I’d rather see a world of poor and more, than a world of empty and affluent.
I could not agree more with what you said Francisco and especially your last paragraph. Unfortunately for all of us alive right now we live at the one time in human history where we have outgrown our capacity to sustain ourselves, all of us, adequately.
If you go for the average of of what our earth can safely and with certainty sustain for an indefinite period it is a number that will only sadden your beautiful heart more than I care to see.
I will pray we have the wisdom and the courage to do what we need to do today so that 1000 years from now, children will be born into a world where they talk about the love that we gave them all by our sacrifices now.
Your honesty and self-reflection are very welcome here.
“the development of a reasonably effective and licit form of birth control”
such as
Um, I’m pretty sure Francisco is talking about NFP. Context and all that.
Thales,
you ask an important question, one which I think is related to an earlier concern by Doug about the very term “over-population”. So let me be clear that I don’t think any person is “excess” or “redundant” or needs to be gotten rid of. Over-population (to me, and I think to most demographers) means that the “product” of population and consumption is not sustainable. I worry that we are there now if only because consumption is too high: if things do not change I am convinced that we will be there in 2050 if world population breaks 9 billion.
What would I do? I would approach the equation on both halves. Brett has discussed the consumption side already, and I concur with what he has said, though again I want to stress just how far we have to go: we will not get there simply by getting everyone in North America to recycle. This will require a substantial reformulation of how we see the world, and may require significant changes to our economy: if consumption goes down, then the economy slows, yielding a recession. We need to think through how we are going to manage that process without getting trapped in statist solutions or a “free market” two-tier system in which the majority consume little (because they cannot afford to) and a small minority continues to over-consume. (In some sense, this latter is already what we have, when we compare the developed and developing worlds; but try to imagine this dichotomy in America.)
I also believe that we need to address the population side by working to reduce the aggregate reproduction rate. Fertility rates in much of the developing world are decreasing, but too slowly. This process needs to be aided. This can be done in a morally licit fashion, though to proceed we need to be honest to ourselves and admit the role that birth control has played in this process. Demographers note the following phenomenon which they believe is universal: as infant mortality decreases and life span increases (due to better nutrition and improved medicine) fertility rates decrease. However, there is a lag which appears to be about a generation or more long: it takes time for the changes to be perceived and impact on fertility. Much of the population increase of the last century is due to this lag. I think we can shrink this gap and thereby speed the reduction in fertility rates. Many years ago I met the Drs. Billing in Berkeley where they gave a talk about (among other things) their work in the third world. Though they did not use this language, Mrs. Dr. Billings in particular left me with the impression that this is what she was doing: convincing women that they could reduce the number of children they were having by spacing their births and in doing so improve their lives and the lives of their families.
At the same time we can also address the concerns (in my mind real but somewhat exaggerated) about sub-replacement fertility in Western Europe and Japan. Here in the U.S. we are addressing this problem by immigration, and I suspect that this will continue and expand in Europe and Japan. But we can also work to increase fertility rates by very modest amounts to restore it to replacement levels. I am not aware of any examples of this being done, but I think it can happen fairly quickly: certainly, in the United States the end of baby boom was a very sudden phenomenon.
In this regard, I think that this provides the context for understanding what Benedict meant by “responsible procreation”—this cannot be talked about abstractly, but must be discussed both in the local and global context. Also the quote from the Catechism given by Henry above is directly to the point: “The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population.” Depending on the circumstances, the demography must be oriented differently.
Though they did not use this language, Mrs. Dr. Billings in particular left me with the impression that this is what she was doing: convincing women that they could reduce the number of children they were having by spacing their births and in doing so improve their lives and the lives of their families.
That makes sense to me.
The line following the CC quote about the state intervening says: “This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures.”
So, it makes sense to me that the way of dealing with the population question is by informing people, giving them information, etc. This goes back to the B16 line that I liked above: “That is why the formation of the human person is the true recipe, the key to it all, I would say, and this is what the Church proposes.” Changing the hearts of people to make them responsible members of the global community is key. But, of course, that can’t be done by force, it can only be done by persuasion.