Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[gadgetlady 4]

What a great way to describe us Christians. We're not perfect...just forgiven! :amen:

But as lisah25 mentioned, we do have to try to follow Christ's teachings. But it can be tough at times since we aren't perfect. But we have to genuinely keep trying. It's a journey for sure. Fortunately, to be saved we don't have to be perfect! *whew*

Well said, everyone. I have a question for the Christians on the board who have read this thread. Have I been out of line? I've asked my husband, who is very honest with me and lets me know when I'm stepping over the line, and he said no. But I'd like the opinion of others here. If an apology is owed, I'm certainly not above proffering one.

[*susan* 1,709]

I have been following this thread for a while now. I think, had Sunta put her original post a little differently, it would have been a completely different story that would have resulted in an intellectual debate. If she would have said, "I do not feel it is environmentally sound for people to bring a large amount of children into the world" or something along those lines, it would have not been offensive. But to say people who have large families are "idiotic" or "uneducated" is offensive. Therefore, this thread has turned into an argument about that instead. It is fine to have an opinion, it is fine to voice an opinion, but do so in a manner that is respectful of others and incites intelligent debate instead of heated arguments.

I have done a great deal of reading, watched numerous shows, etc. in regards to our environment and the problems we are facing with it. The people who do the research for this are "highly intelligent and educated" people, they are scientists, environmentalists, etc. Not once, have I ever heard them blame the state of the world on people having too many children. As humans, we have come to enjoy the many luxuries we have invented/discovered over the years. Unfortunately, these same things we all know and love have led to the deterioration of our environment. Perhaps, instead of looking to place blame, which solves nothing, we need to invest our time and money into looking for solutions. Instead of investing our money in researching the mating habits of strange animals, creating weapons of destruction, etc., we should invest that money, research and time into more environmentally friendly products and how to correct the damage that has already been done.

[~Pam~ 0]

I have a question for the Christians on the board who have read this thread. Have I been out of line? I've asked my husband, who is very honest with me and lets me know when I'm stepping over the line, and he said no. But I'd like the opinion of others here. If an apology is owed, I'm certainly not above proffering one.

A part of me hesitates to answer this, but I feel that I should. To refer to someone as judgmental, intolerant, disdainful, and close-minded is every bit as inapporpriate as calling someone dumb, illogical, and hateful. When a poster here wrote "If you think you two act like Jesus would have acted, I'd be scared to meet him." Although that comment was NOT directed towards me, it hurt my heart to read that. We are to be lights of the Lord. No one should ever think badly of Christ or his teachings because of OUR actions or words. Although I applaud and respect your passion for Christ, we have to respond to criticism and persecution with the virtues that Christ teaches us...tolerance, love, respect and understanding. If someone is unkind to us, we show them kindness back. Easier said than done, of course...but we need to try. I think it shows a great deal about your true character to even ask this question! Hopefully others will follow your example! :hug:

[gadgetlady 4]

A part of me hesitates to answer this, but I feel that I should. To refer to someone as judgmental, intolerant, disdainful, and close-minded is every bit as inapporpriate as calling someone dumb, illogical, and hateful. When a poster here wrote "If you think you two act like Jesus would have acted, I'd be scared to meet him." Although that comment was NOT directed towards me, it hurt my heart to read that. We are to be lights of the Lord. No one should ever think badly of Christ or his teachings because of OUR actions or words.

Thanks for your honest response, Pam. I agree with you about the comment about being scared to meet Jesus, but I also know that 1) that may have been intended to be inflammatory, and 2) there are some people who are so anti-Christian that it really doesn't matter how you behave; you will still get attacked for not representing Christ properly. That's why I asked for input from other Christians. I would appreciate some more if anyone is willing! Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

[~Pam~ 0]

I agree with you about the comment about being scared to meet Jesus, but I also know that 1) that may have been intended to be inflammatory

But regardless if it was or not, doesn't actually matter. It was a good point!

2) there are some people who are so anti-Christian that it really doesn't matter how you behave; you will still get attacked for not representing Christ properly.

That doesn't matter though. Yes, people who are anti-Christian WILL persecute us no matter how we behave, that is very true. But what's important here is that CHRIST will know how we behaved. He will see that we chose to have his light shine through us even in times of persecution, rather than ignoring his teachings and attacking others (talking in general here, not you specifically!!). We should never allow other people's inappropriate actions or words dictate how WE should respond to them, kwim?

Anyway, just some things to think about. :hug:

[Wheetsin 714]

I know that no one has made this claim, at least not that I've read or inferred, but just to clarify something before it has the chance to get murky.

Atheist does not mean anti-Christian, or against Christians. Being asexual doesn't mean that you're against sex, just that you are without it. And being atypical doesn't mean that you're against what is typical, just that you're not it. Likewise - being atheist doesn't mean you're against theism, just that you're without it.

Atheists and theists don't necessarily have to pit themselves into an "us v. them" relationship. But it seems to be such an automatic stance sometimes. There are angry atheists out there, and there are angry christians out there, but by and large - and this is my perspective - we all just "are".

As for what christianity is all about - it has been interesting for me to read your opinions. I can say with absolute certainty, even after some period of reflection, that the most intensely religious people I know are also the most angry, vindictive, spiteful and hurtful. Am I saying that all christians are like this? Absolutely not, not even close to it. I'm just saying that of the people in my life, the ones who profess the closest theistic relationship and deepest theistic understanding are, plain and simple, nasty people. Those people, too, believe they are good christians.

[Carlene 12]

I can say with absolute certainty, even after some period of reflection, that the most intensely religious people I know are also the most angry, vindictive, spiteful and hurtful.

I have to say, Wheetsin, I'm glad you don't know me. I think I'm pretty "intensely religious" - I'm just not as loudly religious as some people are.

[Carlene 12]

To refer to someone as judgmental, intolerant, disdainful, and close-minded is every bit as inapporpriate as calling someone dumb, illogical, and hateful.

I absolutely agree. You lose your right to cry "foul" as soon as you step over the line yourself.

[Wheetsin 714]

I have to say, Wheetsin, I'm glad you don't know me. I think I'm pretty "intensely religious" - I'm just not as loudly religious as some people are.

As I said, I absolutely would not make that a blanket statement or apply that to "christians" in general. I should also say that for me, exchanging posts with someone doesn't constitute knowing them. With very few exceptions, the few lades I have met in person, everyone here is a stranger to me. That alone is demonstration that my comments weren't about anyone here (just in case anyone took it that way).

[Devana 0]

I have become confused over who said what in this thread so I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. However, I think that it's important that we remember how important language is. English is an incredibly rich language and we certainly have enough words to debate issues vigorously. I don't believe that "free speech" should be an excuse to use language that is sometimes uncivil. Nonviolent behaviour begins with our choice of words. Fundamentalists referred to as fundies doesn't sound, to me, much different from Pakistanis being called Pakies. I am neither atheist nor Christian, however, some of the name calling and labelling has made me squirm. Some of the language on this and other threads lead me to wonder if perhaps some posters are not really interested in a debate. In which case, I don't understand the intent.

My hope is that everyone will be mindful of the language they use.

[the best me 6]

we have to respond to criticism and persecution with the virtues that Christ teaches us...tolerance, love, respect and understanding. If someone is unkind to us, we show them kindness back. Easier said than done, of course...but we need to try.

Thanks for the admonition, Pam. I hear you. Unfortunately, I reacted with shock and disbelief at the tone of Sunta's posts. Perhaps this was the wrong way to handle it. Even though I'm right to be offended, like Sunta, I went about it wrong. I reacted in kind, and I shouldn't have. Much food for thought...

And so I suppose I owe an apology to you, Sunta, and to anyone else offended by my poorly worded opinions. I'm sorry.

[~Pam~ 0]

Thanks for the admonition, Pam. I hear you. Unfortunately, I reacted with shock and disbelief at the tone of Sunta's posts. Perhaps this was the wrong way to handle it. Even though I'm right to be offended, like Sunta, I went about it wrong. I reacted in kind, and I shouldn't have. Much food for thought...

And so I suppose I owe an apology to you, Sunta, and to anyone else offended by my poorly worded opinions. I'm sorry.

This sounds so silly, but I'm so proud of you guys! It IS hard though, isn't it? I've been so hurt by this thread too. Some of the comments that have been directed towards Christians in general have been very unfair and uncalled for. Even when people say that they are not talking about us specifically, they must know that we'd still find those comments very hurtful. But all we can do is control our own responses and hope that they will realize that some of their comments have been very inappropriate and hurtful as well. :hug:

[Sunta 5]

Can I clarify something? I will admit that some fundamentalists make me angry, yes, they make me angry, and because of that anger, I expressed myself in words such as "idiots" etc.

As I mentioned on another post, I would like to extend an apology to anyone on this thread who personally has 15 or more children. I do absolutely have grave environmental concerns regarding having so many children, the effects of which are very well-documented, whether or not any experts have spoken about them on shows, as one poster pointed out that they have not mentioned having alot of kids.

Saying I would be afraid to meet Christ... that was not intended to be inflammatory at all, but indeed, some fundamentalists are often so mean-spirited and hateful that it does make me wonder... would Jesus do things like picket Gay people's funerals, piercing the hearts of their loved ones even more? Would he strip Gay people of their civil rights? Would he murder abortion doctors? Would he have training camps that teach young people to die for him, like some Muslims do for their God? These are the things I see fundamentalists doing, and it makes me mad. When I then talk about them, I don't say things in polite terms, because I'm already angry at what I feel are gross injustices against me, personally.

My very best girlfriend is Christian and she goes to church every Sunday. She thinks the statue is deeply offensive and that people in the Quiverfull movement are "nutcases" (her word, not mine). So I know that there are Christians who agree with me, and I deeply respect her and her beliefs.

Based on what I've seen, I just don't think that most fundamentalist Christians are very nice people, whatsoever. I was already angry about that when I started the thread.

Nevertheless, I would never try and stop them from expressing their beliefs although I want the freedom to express mine in the way that I feel.

I never thought I would be offending anyone on this thread personally, because I never thought anyone here would have 15 or more children. I view that as very extreme, and as I've said many times, a really bad idea in terms of being socially/environmentally conscious.

I would venture to guess that when people learn painful truths about themselves (such as "gee, maybe having 20 children really is contributing to the downfall of the environment" or "Gosh, maybe driving that enormous SUV really is contributing to global warming") it's really upsetting, and that accounts for some of the outrage over my comments.

If people would really honestly take the time to learn about something new, they could be so enriched, as Green pointed out.

Unfortunately, it always seems to be the fundamentalists tihat are the most resistant to ever going outside of their comfort zones.

By the way, I really loved watching choir practice tonight and met alot of nice Christians.

See? I'm not as evil as ya'll think I am...

[Sunta 5]

I highly doubt anyone will read this, but if you would, maybe you would understand a tiny bit better where I'm coming from:

1. What is overpopulation?

Overpopulation occurrs when an area is populated too heavily for the available resources and the capacity of the environment. When an area is overpopulated, its population cannot be maintained without destroying nonrenewable resources and without affecting the carrying capacity of the environment (the earth’s ability to support current and future inhabitants).

2. Is overpopulation a problem in the U.S.?

The U.S. is the only major industrialized country still growing, and we show no signs of stopping. The Census shows we grew by 13 percent between 1990 & 2000--and by 83 percent the last 50 years! You can see evidence of the problem all around you--vanishing open spaces, Water and energy shortages, soil erosion, and air pollution, as well as overcrowded schools, urban sprawl, and traffic congestion.

At 292 million Americans, we’re already well over our carrying capacity, and Census projections say we could grow to over 400 million by 2050–that’s another 100 million people to feed, clothe, educate, and house.

3. Isn’t overpopulation a global problem?

Overpopulation is indeed a problem around the globe, but population issues must be solved at the national level, as global agreements are largely unenforceable and fail to recognize the unique history, customs, and challenges of each country.

From an environmental standpoint, U.S. overpopulation is far worse for the environment than overpopulation anywhere else, because of our inordinately high use of resources. And of course, we have the most power to effect change right here at home.

4. What size do you believe the United States should be?

NPG has surveyed scientists over 30 years and asked: What’s the optimum population size before you start exceeding an area’s carrying capacity and harming the environment? The scientific consensus is that 150-200 million is the ideal population size for the U.S. That’s about the size of the U.S. 50 years ago.

5. What is the optimum population size for the world?

Considering food production, the load that human activities are imposing on the biosphere, global warming, chemicals and pollution, labor and wages, issues of social equity, and the problems of crowding, disease, and misery, NPG believes that a world population size of two to three billion would be optimal.

6. I ’ve heard that the entire population of the world could fit inside Texas.

People need more land than just the land they’re standing on–they need land for raising food, producing their oil and Water, recreation and entertainment, shopping, transportation, waste handling, and much more. And overpopulation isn’t about how many people you can jam into a given area; it’s about what the optimum population size is before you start destroying resources and quality of life.

7. The U.S. is growing at about one percent per year.

Why should we be worried about such a small rate?

Although an increase of one percent may sound small, such a rate is monumental when talking about a population the size of the United States. A one percent increase means 2.9 million new people in a year and 29 million in a decade.

8. Isn’t the real problem that we will soon have too few working people to support the elderly? Why are you worried about population growth?

You’re thinking of Europe and Japan, which comprise a very small fraction of world population–about 14 percent. There, fertility decline is leading to a reversal of population growth. This offers those countries the opportunity to decide what population size is best for them. If they decide a larger size is better suited for them, they can raise their fertility back to replacement level or increase immigration.

Worldwide, however, population is still rising quickly. The United Nation’s medium projection is for an increase of more than 50 percent by 2050.

9. Does the economy depend on population growth?

Population growth benefits business interests, since it means more development. But as an area becomes more populated, its infrastructure starts straining under the weight of all the new people who must be served. Police forces, roads, and schools no longer satisfy the demands of a growing population. Farmland and forests are sacrificed to strip malls and housing developments. And as more and more schools, sanitary systems, roads, libraries, and water services must be built, eventually growth no longer lowers the average cost of services, but instead raises it. When this point is reached, growth increases the tax burden on communities; the revenue brought in by new growth is outweighed by the costs it creates. Meanwhile, congestion increases, schools become more crowded, and pollution levels rise.

10. Do we need more people to support the Social Security system?

There is no denying that Social Security's viability requires some tough decisions. But adding scores of millions of new workers would at best postpone, not solve, the Social Security problem–and at an enormous cost in resource depletion and environmental damage. Rather, we should see the aging of America as an opportunity to begin transitioning to sustainability.

11. Food and basic commodities have been getting cheaper at the same time our population has expanded, so why should we worry about resource scarcities?

In order to produce the greater and greater quantities of food needed to satisfy an expanding population, our lands have been deforested and overgrazed and our soil eroded. And don’t forget the quality of life issues associated with population growth: more pollution, more sprawl, tighter housing markets, overcrowded schools, traffic congestion, and vanishing open spaces.

12. How can we achieve lower population?

Three factors influence population: births, deaths, and migration. We can reduce population by lowering our fertility rate (the average number of children per woman) and reducing immigration. If almost all women had no more than two children, our fertility rate would drop to 1.5, because many women choose to have just one or none. Immigration levels are currently over one million a year–five times traditional averages–and should be returned to more traditional levels of 100,000 to 200,000 annually.

13. Can we tell people how to make a personal decision like family size?

We believe people should be educated about how overpopulation affects the environment and everyone’s quality of life and have access to family planning, and then–on their own–make responsible family planning decisions.

14. How could we lower overall fertility?

We could achieve a smaller, more sustainable fertility rate through a combination of social leadership, non-coercive incentives to stop at one or two children (such as tax incentives), free access to family planning education and contraceptives to anyone who wants it, and education. Studies show that as education level goes up, fertility (particularly early fertility) goes down.

15. What is NPG’s position on family planning?

We believe that anyone who wants it should have access to family planning education and contraceptives. It's essential that we raise awareness about family planning and not allow taboos to prevent open discussion about issues so vital to our nation's health.

16. What is NPG's view of abortion?

We support Roe vs. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court interpretations that affirm but limit women's right to abortion and protect the fetus if it has arrived at a viable stage.

There is still a debate about regulating human fertility, because those who oppose it have not yet come to understand what the theory of evolution tells us about human behavior. Charles Darwin had a titanic role in the history of human thought. Out of his observations of finches in the Galapagos Islands came the theory of evolution, which explained things that had never been explainable before about population.

All successful species, he said, have the ability to bear more young than their environment can support. This enables species to recover from food-short periods and it enables the best adapted to expand and fill new environmental niches when the opportunity presents. It also leads to overpopulation. The successful survive. The others die off.

That excess fecundity is central to the population dynamics of living creatures. It was true of human populations until we learned to practice fertility regulation by family planning. Like other animals, our population growth was limited by high mortality, particularly of the young. Medical and public health advances, sanitation and the growth of agricultural yields saved us for a time from that fate, but the process goes on. As human populations continue to grow, they are meeting those limits. The Darwinian controls, imposed in part by our destruction of the ecosystem, will stop the growth.

Seen in that light, family planning is perhaps the most fundamental advance in the human condition. It permits the human species to control its growth by regulating fertility, rather than waiting for the control to come from misery and rising mortality. Family planning is not just something that we are entitled to practice for our own purposes. It is something that the Earth itself badly needs, to escape the damage of continued human population growth. It is essential to the preservation of ecological balance in the face of a species grown far too successful. Within our species, it is desperately needed by the poor and fertile of the world so they can escape the evolutionary curse of excess fecundity and so their children will not be trapped in high mortality.

Such foresight is good in theory, but it may not be sufficient in practice. The common good is probably the last thing on people's minds when they are making love, and abortion may be necessary, for the good of the woman and of society, when contraception is not practiced. In the United States, there is one induced abortion for every three live births. If many of those pregnancies had come to term, fertility and population growth would be much higher than they are. Without legal abortions, there would be (1) more illegal abortions, which are usually septic and dangerous, and (2) more unwanted children, many of them presumably to single mothers less responsible than other women -- and they are hardly ideal parents.

Abortion is the least attractive means of managing birth rates. It has been declining with the widespread availability of contraceptive techniques. It would probably decline further if the other measures were in effect -- including over-the-counter availability of morning after pills. The medical profession, including the scientific advisory council to the Food and Drug Administration, has recommended that they be made available, but the FDA has deferred a decision.

The very idea of family planning is not very old, and the idea of tying it to social ends is a new one in human experience. We are far from knowing how to do it. Until we have learned, abortion plays a role as the final resort for women who don't want children or can't raise them. And Roe vs. Wade provides the legal framework to reconcile it with other societal goals.

17. Won’t technology save us from the problems raised by population growth?

Despite technological advancements, human numbers will ultimately overwhelm our ecosystems. We will eventually run out of finite resources, such as space and water. Even the CIA has weighed in on the issue, predicting in its “Global Trends 2015” report that parts of the U.S. will experience water shortages by 2015. The report stated that water conservation, expanded use of desalinization, developing genetically modified crops that use less water or more saline water, and importing water “will not be sufficient to substantially change the outlook for water shortages in 2015.”

18. Could we negate the results of population growth by reducing our consumption?

Increasing our population means increasing consumption. Every new person consumes resources, takes up space, and disposes of waste products. Even if we can reduce consumption by half, no progress can be achieved if we allow the population to double.

19. Won’t “smart growth” plans help accommodate our increasing numbers?

Rather than packing more and more people into more and more crowded areas, we need to tackle the problem at its source: an ever-growing population. When populations continue to expand, communities must find places to house, educate, and employ new residents and thus, even the best-intentioned smart growth efforts will eventually run up against population pressures.

20. Isn’t immigration just a shifting of people? Why does it matter where people are living?

From the earth’s perspective, population growth is particularly significant in the affluent U.S., where even the environmentally conscious have levels of consumption far exceeding the rest of the world. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population but consumes 25 percent of its resources. When immigrants come here, they adopt our lifestyle and ultimately have a far worse impact on the earth than they would have had in their home country.

21. Isn’t the United States a nation of immigrants?

Immigration levels today are far higher than traditional levels; in the mid 1950s, our immigration was less than one-third what it is today. Additionally, the U.S. today is a very different country than in years past. We’ve settled the last frontiers and open space is no longer a commodity. Further population growth now means diminishing farmlands and otherwise harming our environment.

[~Pam~ 0]

Saying I would be afraid to meet Christ... that was not intended to be inflammatory at all, but indeed, some fundamentalists are often so mean-spirited and hateful that it does make me wonder... would Jesus do things like picket Gay people's funerals, piercing the hearts of their loved ones even more? Would he strip Gay people of their civil rights? Would he murder abortion doctors? Would he have training camps that teach young people to die for him, like some Muslims do for their God? These are the things I see fundamentalists doing, and it makes me mad. When I then talk about them, I don't say things in polite terms, because I'm already angry at what I feel are gross injustices against me, personally.

For the record, they make me angry too!

Although they loudly proclaim they are Christian, they aren't following Christ's teachings. Although Christ would speak out against abortion (since the Bible refers to unborn babies as "life"), for example, he would never bomb an abortion clinic (I can't even comprehend how any "Christian" could justify that). And instead of picketing a gay person's funeral, he would instead be comforting the mourners! Anyone who would intentionally cause others pain in any way, is not following Christ's teachings. And it's hard for us non-extremists (which is the vast majority of Christians!) to sometimes be lumped in with these extremist groups (in general I mean).

By the way, I really loved watching choir practice tonight and met alot of nice Christians.

See? I'm not as evil as ya'll think I am...

I never thought you were! :hug:

And I'm glad you met some nice Christians tonight...there are a lot of us out there, if I do say so myself! lol :becky:

Thank you for clarifying! That was really nice of you! :biggrin1: