Serious question about the Duggars...

[Mrs Mungo]

and has anyone ever wondered how we have survived this long when the earth has never gotten fresh water since its beginning? We have been somehow recycling the relatively small amount of fresh water available here since the beginning of time. How does that work? I mean, I know about precipitation but how does the water get filtered enough to continually use over and over again by generations? Or can I just not think of the obvious answer since I haven't slept in months and haven't had my caffeine yet today?

Water is constantly reflitered through the water cycle. However, at one time there were huge underwater aquifers that had been there for years (thousands, at least). With modern technology we are starting to tap those resources out.

[Jen in NY]

Maybe I too am ignorant on this subject, but I've been puzzling as to how my conserving water will help other areas where water is in short supply.  As far as I know, any water I conserve is just going to sit in our city's reservoir waiting for someone else on the same water system to use it.  Or it's going to evaporate and once again become part of the water cycle.  My guess is if that happens, that bit of water vapor is unlikely to find it's way to India or Africa and fall on an area where water is in such short supply.

 

So . . sure, if water were in short supply here (it isn't) then my conservation would certainly help.  But how does it help someone half a world away?

 

As far as "extra" water being shipped across the globe -- certainly I guess that's possible, if you're just talking about getting enough water for people to drink to keep them alive.  But routine shipping of water to meet other needs (washing, agricultural use, etc.) would be astronomically expensive, I would guess.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

For me, this is where the population explosion comes in... more people... high demand for water.

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe I too am ignorant on this subject, but I've been puzzling as to how my conserving water will help other areas where water is in short supply. As far as I know, any water I conserve is just going to sit in our city's reservoir waiting for someone else on the same water system to use it. Or it's going to evaporate and once again become part of the water cycle. My guess is if that happens, that bit of water vapor is unlikely to find it's way to India or Africa and fall on an area where water is in such short supply.

 

So . . sure, if water were in short supply here (it isn't) then my conservation would certainly help. But how does it help someone half a world away?

 

As far as "extra" water being shipped across the globe -- certainly I guess that's possible, if you're just talking about getting enough water for people to drink to keep them alive. But routine shipping of water to meet other needs (washing, agricultural use, etc.) would be astronomically expensive, I would guess. Where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

Big water companies "buy" or "claim" water sources all over the globe. Look up Nestle and water.

[FriedClams]

I would content (having watched every episode) that they have a much smaller footprint than more "normal" sized families.

 

They buy used clothing.

Toys and clothes are handed down.

They drive used cars.

Their price per mile per person when they drive is likely significantly less than a mom and three kids in a Tahoe.

Each kid has a box of treasures - not piles of stuff like most middle class kids.

They minimize gifts for holidays.

Yes, the last episode they have a warehouse of stuff - to reuse or sell.

 

I wish most families were as resource responsible.

[Pawz4me]

Big water companies "buy" or "claim" water sources all over the globe. Look up Nestle and water.

 

Okay, I must be really thick today, or not caffeinated enough.  Explain to me in kindergarten terms what difference that makes, and how my conserving a few extra gallons of water a day would matter.

[Murphy101]

No, it's the rich west saying they can't spare money to have more kids and the poorest of the poor saying children are a blessing from God.

 

It is a minority of westerners who share that view with the poorest of the poor.

 

So why is it that the most crowded and destitute and desperate view their children with more hope than the privileged west and how dare the west tell them it is selfish to do so?

 

The truth is it isn't really about global over-population. They care about too many poor people. Especially when they are dark skinned and or minorities and or living on natural resources. God help them if they hit all three criteria, the west will do its best to obliterate them off the map.

 

I don't care of this planet goes down in flames, me and my house choose life. Every time. There will always be economically poor people and Heaven knows I like the things money can buy as much as anyone else here. But it's my opinion that the world needs every single kind, generous, loving soul. The messed up world can't spare a single one. Life is hope. Without it, there's no point in bothering.

 

If at all possible, I think they should be helped, for free, to develop sustenance for themselves. (Water purification, crops, sanitation, alternative energy...). I think it is immoral that any third world country is in debt to any first world country in the name of "help". If the government doesn't want to fund it, that's fine by me, our government is set up to meet our social contract, not theirs, but it doesn't have to be such a nightmare stupid expensive PITA for charities to go over and help out.

 

I don't understand the concept of "save the planet - don't have kids."

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Okay, I must be really thick today, or not caffeinated enough.  Explain to me in kindergarten terms what difference that makes, and how my conserving a few extra gallons of water a day would matter.

 

In the spirit of "show, don't tell" as an effective rhetorical practice, I've got two vids for this topic:

 

 

and

 

 

(Both are kid friendly)

 

[I.Dup.]

Well, for one thing, even 200 years ago we still only had ~1 billion people on earth. Now there are 7 billion. Same amount of water...

 

ETA: Sorry I think I answered a question I thought you were asking... namely how can we have a water supply problem now when we haven't before. As for how the water cycle works...

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/watercycle/

 

 

No, I do get how the water cycle works. :) I guess I didn't realize that you can take water that has been used and reused to wash the dying, clean bodies, etc, over thousands of years and somehow it would become sparking fresh and new again just by going through the water cycle. I didn't realize the water cycle filtered it to that extent. That's cool. I've just never thought about that before.

 

And I do understand we have more people on earth all at once, but since the beginning of time there has had to have been way more than 8 billion people live and die on this earth.

[Pawz4me]

In the spirit of "show, don't tell" as an effective rhetorical practice, I've got two vids for this topic:

 

 

and

 

 

(Both are kid friendly)

 

 

Thanks for posting those, but . . . there's nothing there I didn't already know.  I think I have a good grasp on how the water cycle works, and the effect an exploding world population has on the finite amount of fresh, drinkable water we have on earth's surface at any given time.

 

But my question remains unanswered, unless I'm truly being overwhelmingly dense and just not "getting" it -- how will my conserving of a few gallons of water a day here in my little corner of the U.S., where water is not (as of right now) in short supply make things better for someone in another party of the world where water is in short supply?  My conservation isn't going to make that water magically appear in another area where it's desperately needed.  And if I use a few extra gallons (as opposed to conserving it), aren't those gallons used going right back into the water cycle?

[nmoira]

And I do understand we have more people on earth all at once, but since the beginning of time there has had to have been way more than 8 billion people live and die on this earth.

I've seen estimates on the range of 100 to 120+ billion, though that's some the beginning of humanity. But still, that's a huge chunk of the cumulative population alive *now*.

 

As far as water, it's not just total amount that matters, but also how accessible it is. It's obviously harder to get drinking water from the sea than a freshwater source. Climate patterns also change cyclically. For example, every 13000 years or so, the earth wobbles on its axis, changing the effective range of the monsoons in Africa, cycling between more northerly or not. For thousands of years, much of what is now Sahara Desert will be green. Then, wobble, and it gradually disappears (this is why there are huge ancient aquifers you might be hearing about in the news). We're still on the "disappearing" segment of the wobble.

 

Also, much formerly fertile land is no longer so; see the current problems in the "fertile crescent."

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Thanks for posting those, but . . . there's nothing there I didn't already know.  I think I have a good grasp on how the water cycle works, and the effect an exploding world population has on the finite amount of fresh, drinkable water we have on earth's surface at any given time.

 

But my question remains unanswered, unless I'm truly being overwhelmingly dense and just not "getting" it -- how will my conserving of a few gallons of water a day here in my little corner of the U.S., where water is not (as of right now) in short supply make things better for someone in another party of the world where water is in short supply?  My conservation isn't going to make that water magically appear in another area where it's desperately needed.  And if I use a few extra gallons (as opposed to conserving it), aren't those gallons used going right back into the water cycle?

 

Your conserving a few gallons will indeed have no effect by itself, just as your single vote will have no effect by itself.  The idea is that large swaths of the population have to each do the same little thing (conserving, voting, etc) and there will be a larger collective effect.  It's the old think-global-act-local idea.  The water cycle is global, so it's quite possible a few water molecules in the ice cubes in your fridge were once inside a glacier in Greenland, just as the electrons in your thumb were once inside a supernova.

 

True, your gallons go back into the cycle, but if the outflow exceeds the ingo, our upkeep will be our downfall.

[VeganCupcake]

Maybe I too am ignorant on this subject, but I've been puzzling as to how my conserving water will help other areas where water is in short supply.  As far as I know, any water I conserve is just going to sit in our city's reservoir waiting for someone else on the same water system to use it.  Or it's going to evaporate and once again become part of the water cycle.  My guess is if that happens, that bit of water vapor is unlikely to find it's way to India or Africa and fall on an area where water is in such short supply.

 

So . . sure, if water were in short supply here (it isn't) then my conservation would certainly help.  But how does it help someone half a world away?

 

As far as "extra" water being shipped across the globe -- certainly I guess that's possible, if you're just talking about getting enough water for people to drink to keep them alive.  But routine shipping of water to meet other needs (washing, agricultural use, etc.) would be astronomically expensive, I would guess.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for it?

 

 

Thanks for posting those, but . . . there's nothing there I didn't already know.  I think I have a good grasp on how the water cycle works, and the effect an exploding world population has on the finite amount of fresh, drinkable water we have on earth's surface at any given time.

 

But my question remains unanswered, unless I'm truly being overwhelmingly dense and just not "getting" it -- how will my conserving of a few gallons of water a day here in my little corner of the U.S., where water is not (as of right now) in short supply make things better for someone in another party of the world where water is in short supply?  My conservation isn't going to make that water magically appear in another area where it's desperately needed.  And if I use a few extra gallons (as opposed to conserving it), aren't those gallons used going right back into the water cycle?

 

Well, I doubt that one person flushing a bit less frequently or taking shorter showers will make a global impact. But a lot of water is used in manufacturing stuff that we then import, stuff that is not really needed. Manufacturing also contaminates water a lot more than other processes. For instance, a lot of water goes into cotton growing and processing, and if one consistently buys a bunch of cotton tee shirts because they're cheap and easily replaceable, then that's a global waste of water, not happening in your municipal water system. The same is true with many other products we overbuy and toss, like paper products, a good amount of electronics, etc.

 

I've also read analyses that it's really quite sickening that we in the west use potable water for sewage disposal. We take this precious resource and we poop in it, which is unnecessarily wasteful and may lead us to devalue it.

[HRAAB]

I've never fooled myself that by conserving water or goods or whatever, that it would make a difference on the other side of the world. It does make me feel like a better steward of this planet, though. My kids have learned one of my 'golden rules': just because it's available doesn't mean you should use it; just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

Even with all the conserving I do, there is still so much waste that I need to get a grip on, but I keep trying. Other than donating to a few charities, I don't know what else I can do, personally, but by watching my family's consumption, I'm trying to live as I believe, that I am connected to all the other people on this planet, and I have a responsibility. I don't know why I ended up being born into a white, middle class American family, but I was. I just never want to take it for granted, though.

 

I'm not one to give up, but I have to admit this problem is so huge and so deeply buried in human nature, that I'm not sure it ever will be solved. But maybe we can alleviate it some.

[Ipsey]

No, it's the rich west saying they can't spare money to have more kids and the poorest of the poor saying children are a blessing from God.

 

It is a minority of westerners who share that view with the poorest of the poor.

 

So why is it that the most crowded and destitute and desperate view their children with more hope than the privileged west and how dare the west tell them it is selfish to do so?

 

The truth is it isn't really about global over-population. They care about too many poor people. Especially when they are dark skinned and or minorities and or living on natural resources. God help them if they hit all three criteria, the west will do its best to obliterate them off the map.

 

I don't care of this planet goes down in flames, me and my house choose life. Every time. There will always be economically poor people and Heaven knows I like the things money can buy as much as anyone else here. But it's my opinion that the world needs every single kind, generous, loving soul. The messed up world can't spare a single one. Life is hope. Without it, there's no point in bothering.

 

If at all possible, I think they should be helped, for free, to develop sustenance for themselves. (Water purification, crops, sanitation, alternative energy...). I think it is immoral that any third world country is in debt to any first world country in the name of "help". If the government doesn't want to fund it, that's fine by me, our government is set up to meet our social contract, not theirs, but it doesn't have to be such a nightmare stupid expensive PITA for charities to go over and help out.

 

I don't understand the concept of "save the planet - don't have kids."

 

 

I think you may be imposing some of your own view here. Many of the "poorest of the poor" aren't necessarily saying, "Yes, Lord. Bless me with children." Many of them have no access to birth control, and they have children because that's what comes from having sex. In India, according to a 2012 statistic, 3000 children a day die from starvation. There are thousands of women who are  horrified, every day, to find they are pregnant because they can't feed the children they have and because they are already going hungry. Many of these poor woman probably knew they were bringing children into a situation they couldn't provide for them in.

 

Not so much "give me children, Lord," as "I don't have the resources or knowledge to _not_ conceive them to begin with." I feel particularly bad for children whose mothers say, "Yes, Lord, give me a baby who I know will probably watch slowly starve to death because we can't feed ourselves." I can't imagine a woman with a heart saying so. I hope they are few.

 

Speaking of starving to death in India, if I recall correctly, in the Be Fruitful and Multiply book or Full Quiver (I can't remember which, but I read them when I was an uber-Conservative Christian), I remember the author saying that people in India wouldn't be hungry if they were Christians. They would just eat all of those sacred cattle walking around their streets. Starvation was essentially punishment for not being Christian.

[Murphy101]

I think you may be imposing some of your own view here. Many of the "poorest of the poor" aren't necessarily saying, "Yes, Lord. Bless me with children." Many of them have no access to birth control, and they have children because that's what comes from having sex. In India, according to a 2012 statistic, 3000 children a day die from starvation. There are thousands of women who are horrified, every day, to find they are pregnant because they can't feed the children they have and because they are already going hungry. Many of these poor woman probably knew they were bringing children into a situation they couldn't provide for them in.

 

Not so much "give me children, Lord," as "I don't have the resources or knowledge to _not_ conceive them to begin with." I feel particularly bad for children whose mother's say, "Yes, Lord, give me a baby who I know will probably watch slowly starve to death because we can't feed ourselves." I can't imagine a woman with a heart saying so. I hope they are few.

I think it just as likely you are imposing your views.

 

I don't think any decent woman wants to watch her child or anyone else's child starve to death.

 

I don't think it is indecent for a woman in dire circumstances to still want her child to live anyways. Hope is weird like that.

 

I think it's immoral to see someone starving and say the problem is birth control. No, the problem is lack of food. I think it's immoral to see women regularly raped and focus on birth control. No, the problem is a social system that puts them at the mercy of men without conscience.

[Ipsey]

I think it just as likely you are imposing your views.

 

I don't think any decent woman wants to watch her child or anyone else's child starve to death.

 

I don't think it is indecent for a woman in dire circumstances to still want her child to live anyways. Hope is weird like that.

 

I think it's immoral to see someone starving and say the problem is birth control. No, the problem is lack of food. I think it's immoral to see women regularly raped and focus on birth control. No, the problem is a social system that puts them at the mercy of men without conscience.

 

Well now, let's just imagine this.

Which is stranger?

That a woman who lives in a place where she goes hungry every day and where she watches many people starve to death and has other children who are hungry should be eager for another child or that she should not?

 

I think I'm making a reasonable statement here.

 

I have had students from all over the world and have heard horror stories about mothers, sisters, cousins, back in the home country, who are desperate and horrified and grieving over yet another baby. The poorest of the poor feel it the worst, and many grieve. Many are terrified. 

 

Birth control is one answer to one aspect of the problem. It is not everything.

 

It is possible to use up all of ones resources. I see nothing immoral about acknowledging that. 

[nmoira]

I think it's immoral to see someone starving and say the problem is birth control. No, the problem is lack of food. I think it's immoral to see women regularly raped and focus on birth control. No, the problem is a social system that puts them at the mercy of men without conscience.

Ummm, starvation *is* a lack of food.

 

And are you saying all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape? Or that these are the only ones that count? Or that because some terrible things exist, everything else is unimportant? Or that people who care about birth control don't care about rape?

 

I think it's immoral to deny women reliable access to birth control.

[Joanne]

I would content (having watched every episode) that they have a much smaller footprint than more "normal" sized families.

 

They buy used clothing.

Toys and clothes are handed down.

They drive used cars.

Their price per mile per person when they drive is likely significantly less than a mom and three kids in a Tahoe.

Each kid has a box of treasures - not piles of stuff like most middle class kids.

They minimize gifts for holidays.

Yes, the last episode they have a warehouse of stuff - to reuse or sell.

 

I wish most families were as resource responsible.

 

 

I think this assumes a lot about "most middle class families."

 

I find the Duggar-groupie support incongruous. They are not icons for anything I value. With the exception of being debt free. I would admire the "clean" speech of the Duggars, but I sure wish I could hear it from women who were free in a practical and virtual manner to back that up with education of THEIR choice - but the range of choice of Duggar children was limited a long time ago through the theological, worldview, and psychological choices of the parents.

[Ipsey]

I think it just as likely you are imposing your views.

 

I don't think it is indecent for a woman in dire circumstances to still want her child to live anyways. Hope is weird like that.

 

 

I didn't say that, either.

I said, children starve to death every day. That's a fact. Put aside the question of over-population.

 

Women who are living in desperate situations might not be thrilled about the prospect of another child. Of course they want their children to live!  They just might be unlikely to want/pray for/hope for another who will likely suffer and go hungry and starve to death, and be an additional drain on scant resources. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

Lack of resources, for whatever reason, equals dead people. Dead children pull our heartstrings the most. 

 

[Murphy101]

Well now, let's just imagine this.

Which is stranger?

That a woman who lives in a place where she goes hungry every day and where she watches many people starve to death and has other children who are hungry should be eager for another child or that she should not?

 

I think I'm making a reasonable statement here.

I simply don't view it as an either or. I think people starving long for everything the rest of us long for. Stability. Love. A future. Hope. For many people the world over, children embody much of those longings.

 

I have had students from all over the world and have heard horror stories about mothers, sisters, cousins, back in the home country, who are desperate and horrified and grieving over yet another baby. The poorest of the poor feel it the worst, and many grieve. Many are terrified. 

Yes. This has always been the lament of poor women. My mother was one. (She would be horrified that I'm catholic and anti birth control.) Sometimes I've been one.

[Haiku]

Um. 

What is this? 

 

It's religiously based denialism. If there is a limit to how many people the world can support, then there is a limit on what god can provide, or he miscalculated, and therefore god is not omnipotent and omniscient. If we should be mindful of not overpopulating, then we should practice family planning. And birth control is evil, remember.

[Rosie_0801]

Sincere question for those of you who slam the U.S. for being the highest per capita consumers of resources -- How do you sort that out when considering we are also the leading exporter of food in the world?  Growing so much food requires water and energy.  Would the world population as a whole be better off if we cut our consumption of those resources, which would of course result in much less available food?

 

You might be interested in how food aid works. To answer the bolded, sometimes yes. Sometimes that food is needed elsewhere, sometimes elsewhere would be much better off without it.

 

I had an article, but I don't seem to have access to it any more. Gah.

[Murphy101]

Every time I read or hear this stuff, I'm always reminded of A Modest Proposal by Swift.

 

*sigh*

 

Starving people do not need birth control. They need food. For me, it's that simple. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

[nmoira]

Every time I read or hear this stuff, I'm always reminded of A Modest Proposal by Swift.

 

*sigh*

 

Starving people do not need birth control. They need food. For me, it's that simple. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

 

Nobody is talking about enforcing its use. I'd rather leave it up to individual women as to whether they use, want, or need birth control.  I don't speak for you, and you don't speak for all women. It's access I advocate.

[Ipsey]

Every time I read or hear this stuff, I'm always reminded of A Modest Proposal by Swift.

 

*sigh*

 

Starving people do not need birth control. They need food. For me, it's that simple. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

Most starving people have neither. They should have access to both. It's likely both will be welcomed.

[Jen in NY]

The thing is, at some point there will just be too many people to feed and water. That's the whole point of examining exponential population growth. Yes, there are hungry people in the world that we can and should feed right now. Yes, we should treat our fresh water better and with more care. As a society we can do lots of things better. Additionally, we can probably support more people here in the US, especially if we use our resources more wisely (dare I mention wealth redistribution, lol?). That is almost having a different argument. Of course we should be trying to do those things better... even without pop growth.

 

That doesn't change the fact that *If* exponential population growth continues unhindered, at some point we will all run out of resources together.

 

(Again, I recommend Collapse, by Jared Diamond.)

[Mrs Mungo]

Okay, I must be really thick today, or not caffeinated enough.  Explain to me in kindergarten terms what difference that makes, and how my conserving a few extra gallons of water a day would matter.

Because of the difference it makes when you add it up across the nearly 314 million people in the USA. It's the same reason we all pay some taxes. Is even ONE soldier's salary and training paid with YOUR personal taxes? Nope, not unless you're a multi-millionaire. How about one highway? One hospital? One airport? Nope.

[Mrs Mungo]

Refusing to even examine the consequences of over-consumption and over-population because you fear the boogeyman of forced reproduction control? That is a serious moral and logical failing, IMO.

[Caroline]

I want to add to what you said here, with which I agree. Population shouldn't follow an exponential model. It should follow a logistic model. A logistic curve levels off as opposed to an exponential which just keeps multiplying. So the question is, why hasn't the curve leveled off? Because we have reached that point or because we are circumnavigating nature?

 

I agree we need to examine the exponential population growth. I live in a metropolis with water problems. And it isn't from watering lawns. It's political between states and between farmers and recreation sites. And from who lives up river and damming water and... I heard an interesting piece on NPR this morning about water in Florida and the Everglades and farming land that maybe shouldn't have been farmed. It was talking about Florida buying land from US Sugar and returning it to its original status.

 

The thing is, at some point there will just be too many people to feed and water. That's the whole point of examining exponential population growth. Yes, there are hungry people in the world that we can and should feed right now. Yes, we should treat our fresh water better and with more care. As a society we can do lots of things better. Additionally, we can probably support more people here in the US, especially if we use our resources more wisely (dare I mention wealth redistribution, lol?). That is almost having a different argument. Of course we should be trying to do those things better... even without pop growth.

 

That doesn't change the fact that *If* exponential population growth continues unhindered, at some point we will all run out of resources together.

 

(Again, I recommend Collapse, by Jared Diamond.)

[Murphy101]

Refusing to even examine the consequences of over-consumption and over-population because you fear the boogeyman of forced reproduction control? That is a serious moral and logical failing, IMO.

To be clear, I have not once mentioned forced reproduction control. (Tho I think ignoring something that has not at all been just a boogeyman in the past is also a moral and logical failing.)

 

Nor am I refusing to examine ways to combat over consumption or population needs.

[albeto.]

Starving people do not need birth control. They need food. For me, it's that simple. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

Sure they do. Starving people absolutely need birth control, and education, and protection from forced marriage, and equal representation in public policy, and access to economic independence, and affordable medical care, and access to clean water, all kinds of things in addition to food. Why wouldn't they?

[Mrs Mungo]

To be clear, I have not once mentioned forced reproduction control. (Tho I think ignoring something that has not at all been just a boogeyman in the past is also a moral and logical failing.)

 

Nor am I refusing to examine ways to combat over consumption or population needs.

I wasn't referring to you or your posts. I was referring to other people who were quite clear in their intent.

 

Do you think the US is moving toward forced reproduction or moving away from forced reproduction?

 

I think we are moving *away* from that kind of thinking.

 

Do you think people with a liberal bent (who are generally the type concerned with ecology, conservation, etc) are usually more in favor of forced reproduction or less in favor? Do you think people with a politically conservative bent (by this I mean anti-welfare, anti-collectivism, etc) are usually more in favor of forced reproduction or less in favor?

 

The *only* people I've heard talk about requiring or forcing anyone to control their reproduction have been conservatives who don't believe anyone receiving government assistance of any kind should be forced to control reproduction. And really, that has nothing to do with conservation or over-poplation.

 

That's why I say that connecting *forced* reproductive control with people who believe that conservation is a good thing and over-population is a bad thing=a boogeyman.

 

Does that explain my personal thought process better?

[mommymilkies]

People seem to focus heavily on the birth rate.  The birth rate is largely down.  The aging population is growing, though.  Think of the Baby Boomers.  One of these days, the population will probably level off or decrease because of that huge population boom and our amazing advances in prolonging life.  I'm not saying that's bad, but it is part of the population issue. 

 

Not necessarily about environmental concerns over population, but social and political: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/10/27/overpopulation-isnt-the-problem-its-too-few-babies/

 

All, but Trend 5 perhaps more on topic.  http://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/WPAM.pdf

 

Wiki, I know, but source cited after.  "The UN Population Assessment Report of 2003 states that the world population will plateau by 2050 and will remain that way until 2300. Dr Alex Berezow states that overpopulation is not a Western world problem and people often cite China and India as major population contributors; however he notes that with rising wealth in those countries, population growth will begin to slow, as population growth is strongly linked to the economic stability of a country." http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/longrange2.htm

 

There is debate over whether population growth is exponential, with most sources saying it will level off in 50-100 years.  I'm not arguing it, so don't bother.  It was brought up, so here's a site and a graph. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

 

Note that I am not agreeing with everything I'm posting, but the concerns were raised or mentioned, so figured I'd throw in what I've seen. 

 

So while the global population is increasing, it is unevenly distributed around the globe.  We really have regional overpopulation and a lot of wasteful wealthy nations.  It's no secret that Hummers are status items here in America, and many states make it illegal to donate leftover food from restaurants or to reuse anything.  There is luckily a grassroots movement to decrease consumption not from a population standpoint, but from a more directly ecological one.  On both liberal and conservative sides of the fence, going "rustic" is becoming popular.  Eco choices are now acceptable, if not expected.  Other companies are catching on and doing their part (not all, and not always much), and hopefully the trend continues.  Instead of population control measures in wealthy countries where the issue is moot (statistically as well as the fact that since we don't see it here, it doesn't register), I think pushing for more economic and ecological stability is the best we can do.  I'd say we should help other countries develop their economies better, but obviously our economy is in the toilet and our government is shut down so I couldn't even go on there to get sources for my post.   :glare: Focusing on birth control, replacement fertility, and population control puts people on the defensive for obvious reasons.  Most of us on here (from what I remember of the last poll) have several children.  Many of us agree on doing what we can to be good stewards of the Earth.  So being told that we are bad or killing children in India because we had more than the 2.1 replacement level is really ridiculous and insulting. 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Agree! Educating women benefits so many people outside the individual woman. Her children are far, far more likely to be literate, she is more able to support them alone if the need arises, and spouses of educated women are happier. Everyone benefits. That's one reason why the rise of antiintellectual, male-centered movements like ATI, here in 21st century America, is so very frightening to me. It's not about the religion, it's cultural, and it's a cultural movement clearly meant to move away from empowering girls and women, toward returning them to dependency.

 

Well said.  Shanta Devarajan, World Bank chief economist for Africa said:

 

 

"Twenty-five of the 28 high-fertility (more than 5 children per woman) countries are in Africa. This and related facts have revived the concern that Africa will miss out on the “demographic dividend†–the rapid economic growth rates associated with declining fertility, as experienced by many countries in Asia. But Africa is also the continent with the slowest economic growth in the past. And, as The Economist (and others) pointed out, economic growth is probably the best contraceptive. "

 

I would also refer everyone to the series on The Girl Effect.  (now if only I could figure out how to embed a vid  :huh: )

[Murphy101]

I wasn't referring to you or your posts. I was referring to other people who were quite clear in their intent.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up bc I was wondering why someone would think I held that view.

 

Do you think the US is moving toward forced reproduction or moving away from forced reproduction?I think we are moving *away* from that kind of thinking.

I think the US is polarized over just about everything these days. I sincerely believe some folks think rights are a privilege, tho they might never admit.

 

Do you think people with a liberal bent (who are generally the type concerned with ecology, conservation, etc) are usually more in favor of forced reproduction or less in favor?

Well this is somewhat funny given you joked I was such a liberal in another thread. :)

I'm actually concerned with conservation too. I like food. I like safe drinking water. I like not having an asthma attack from smog. :)

 

I have no idea what the liberals you describe are more in favor of. But I can tell you as a mother of many they give a distinct "we want women to have choice but the we think they are awful people if they don't choose like we think they should." It's a fine line from that to forced, IMO.

 

Do you think people with a politically conservative bent (by this I mean anti-welfare, anti-collectivism, etc) are usually more in favor of forced reproduction or less in favor?The *only* people I've heard talk about requiring or forcing anyone to control their reproduction have been conservatives who don't believe anyone receiving government assistance of any kind should be forced to control reproduction. And really, that has nothing to do with conservation or over-poplation.

Idk. Honestly. The truth is many here probably think I'm a conservative like that, but I'm not at all. People like you describe. I think they are also people who think rights are privileges of those blessed by their charity and good will. I don't agree with them.

 

That's why I say that connecting *forced* reproductive control with people who believe that conservation is a good thing and over-population is a bad thing=a boogeyman.Does that explain my personal thought process better?

Yes, it does explain it some. I think both polar ends can be genuine threats.

 

I'd *like* to think more people are like me (who doesn't want to think that tho, right?) and are not so clearly in any such camps.

 

My big frustration and why I probably shouldn't have bothered with entering this discussion is that over population/consumption almost always becomes about birth control. I simply don't think that's the answer or a right or something I'm interested in funding. (Which does NOT mean I think women shouldn't be educated or have equal rights.)

 

But it's the only thing it seems many overpop discussions are about.

[mamajudy]

Maybe the Duggars' 20th child will grow up to be the one to solve the problem of world hunger.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the US is polarized over just about everything these days. I sincerely believe some folks think rights are a privilege, tho they might never admit.

I agree.

 

 

Well this is somewhat funny given you joked I was such a liberal in another thread. :)

I'm actually concerned with conservation too. I like food. I like safe drinking water. I like not having an asthma attack from smog. :)

Just for clarity's sake, I wasn't trying to ascribe either viewpoint to you. I like all of that too. :)

 

I have no idea what the liberals you describe are more in favor of. But I can tell you as a mother of many they give a distinct "we want women to have choice but the we think they are awful people if they don't choose like we think they should." It's a fine line from that to forced, IMO.

I guess given my circles (homeschooling, LLL, etc) that I know as many anti-bc hippy earth mother and *very* liberal people as I do conservatives with lots of kids? So, I have never had that vibe from anyone? I don't doubt that it exists. It just doesn't really reflect my personal experiences.

 

 

Idk. Honestly. The truth is many here probably think I'm a conservative like that, but I'm not at all. People like you describe. I think they are also people who think rights are privileges of those blessed by their charity and good will. I don't agree with them.

I agree with you. I am from Oklahoma too, so I would be willing to bet that we have a lot of crossover in our early experiences.

 

 

My big frustration and why I probably shouldn't have bothered with entering this discussion is that over population/consumption almost always becomes about birth control. I simply don't think that's the answer or a right or something I'm interested in funding. (Which does NOT mean I think women shouldn't be educated or have equal rights.)

For me, it has always been more about over-consumption, consumerism and conservation. But...I was probably very influenced by my college professors who spoke to those things (human geography, geology, etc) than people that you have experienced.

[Free]

Starving people do not need birth control. They need food. For me, it's that simple. I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

 

I am from India. I can vouch for the fact that women who choose smaller family sizes, no matter how poor, find it easier to feed themselves and their kids. They manage to even spare a little for "luxuries" like education for their kids. I have found this to be so universally true where I come from, that I do not question the fact that starving women would do infinitely better with birth control.

[lewelma]

Well, in the last 14 years, the global population has increased by 1 billion people. Every 4.5 days there are a million more of us on the planet. At *some* point there will be too many of us ... I think the question is HOW will the correction take place.

 

We know how it will take place - war, famine, disease. 

 

Without coercive controls, it will always be the tragedy of the commons -- the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests.

 

Ruth in NZ

[kroe1]

This post made me want to research costs of water. Very roughly speaking, as there are huge variations, but desalination of ocean water can cost 10 to 100 times more than processing fresh water sources. But if we could assume an endless energy supply and easy transport, then the world would never run out of water. By the way, since the Middle East has so much oil, it can afford the energy consumption of all of those big desalination plants.

 

I also did not know that methane gas in the earth's early years caused a 25% decrease in the earth's water according to one theory. But that is way too off-topic.

 

p.s. I love the Duggars, but is this off-topic, too?

[Orthodox6]

So I read today that they're trying for another baby. Mkay. What caught my attention though was this: 

 

"Michelle tells Celebrity Baby Scoop that she doesn't believe in overpopulation. "We have studied it and I believe that there is a misconception about overpopulation. I think that the whole mindset of overpopulation is really overrated," the Duggar family matriarch explains. "A few years back, we stated that the whole population of the world could be stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Jacksonville. That may have changed a little bit since we've heard that statistic."

 

 

Um. 

 

What is this? 

 

Is this something to do with their religion? I ask that because she goes on to say "I think that there is this ideology that goes behind overpopulation that I don't really agree with," she adds. "It's a different perspective and that's where people have their different ideas, and that's okay. That's what makes the world go around; there are many different ideas and different perspectives about certain topics." And that sounds a lot like "worldview" stuff that gets thrown around with religious ideology. 

 

So... anyone? Where does that Jacksonville statistic come from? 

 

 

ETA: link to article here: http://www.today.com/entertainment/michelle-duggar-trying-get-pregnant-20th-child-8C11363494

 

 

The woman has painted herself into a corner, in a sense.  If she were to profess concern about overpopulation, she would be hard pressed to explain her number of children.

 

I support larger families.  I distinguish, however, between ( 1 ) families who trustingly accept the number of children sent to them (or not sent to them) by God and ( 2 ) families who were blessed with a few children yet continue to "force" their increase.  Group ( 2 ), imo, is not trusting God.  They are "testing" God with their demands, if I may put it that way.  Members of Group ( 1 ) do not go on reality shows.  Nor do they advertise their intents -- (not even wishes, but intents) -- to have additional children.  They do not seek the public eye for their lives. 

[MolleenCarie]

How come no one suggests limiting the resources spent on pets?

 

I spent nearly $400 a year on my cat for the two years I calculated the costs of having her. She's in the States with my mom now - it was too expensive and risky to move her overseas at her age. (She was 15 when we moved.)

 

I know plenty of people that feed their dogs raw food instead of the animal by-products found in commercial dog food. How come we aren't discussing them? Isn't it wasteful to dote on a well-fed dog when people are starving?

 

It's ironic that many of the most devoted dog owners are also choosing not to have children, quite possibly for the reasons discussed in this thread.

 

What exactly is being recommended for the poor women when people post that we need to educate them and give them access to birth control? Pills?

 

Birth control pills taint the water supply. Timed abstinence is more effective, has no side effects, costs nothing, and empowers women.

[Scarlett]

How come no one suggests limiting the resources spent on pets?

 

I spent nearly $400 a year on my cat for the two years I calculated the costs of having her. She's in the States with my mom now - it was too expensive and risky to move her overseas at her age. (She was 15 when we moved.)

 

I know plenty of people that feed their dogs raw food instead of the animal by-products found in commercial dog food. How come we aren't discussing them? Isn't it wasteful to dote on a well-fed dog when people are starving?

 

It's ironic that many of the most devoted dog owners are also choosing not to have children, quite possibly for the reasons discussed in this thread.

 

What exactly is being recommended for the poor women when people post that we need to educate them and give them access to birth control? Pills?

 

Birth control pills taint the water supply. Timed abstinence is more effective, has no side effects, costs nothing, and empowers women.

You can find rabid zealots for any cause. I remember going on a dog site asking for help with an issue we were having with our dog. There were some radical people there. Come on people it is a dog!

[FaithManor]

Someone asked about conserving water, and how that is practical or helpful to other countries so I thought I would respond.

 

I take hold this view. I try to be water conscious for the sake of my own community. While we currently do not have water problems, that doesn't mean it will be that way forever. California has been in a long term drought and has huge issues. Colorado had a drought...forest fires, etc. There are serious problems caused from water wars. Therefore, knowing that other places in my own nation as well as across the world are not blessed with enough water for their population, makes me not only aware of how fortunate I am, but also not inclined to believe that it will always be this way if everyone over-consumes water.

 

Water conserving toilet, front loader washer, water the apple trees with the rinse water from doing dishes (we use Dr. Bronner's Castile soap so I don't worry about toxins being poured into the ground), no watering of the lawn no matter how long it's been since the last rain, short showers and not every day for each person in the family, etc.  We have a 175 ft. deep well sunk into the rock and plenty of water. But, if the community grows and everyone is wanton with their usage, then the water source could be stressed. Since this is an area where there is a real desire to be more independent of the system and conservative with the use of natural resources, most of our neighbors are conservationists too. No, I can't send my excess water to Ethiopia. However, I can do my part to conserve the world's water resources in general and serve my community in doing so. To some degree, that still helps other communities because the fewer places in the world that governments have to assist in this regard, the more energy and resources they have for helping those places that must have assistance.

 

I hope that makes sense. We also worry a lot about water quality. DH and I do water workshops for our county 4-H program in the hopes of influencing future generations to do better with the resources they have, and to be aware of issues such as fertilizer run-off, manufacturing pollution, etc. Hopefully, my kids and their peers will do better than my generation has.

 

As for the Duggars, again, they have put themselves out there. They've made the lives of their minor children a public display, and the children have no legal rights in the matter. Their personal lives, whether they want it blasted all over the telly or not, have been sensationalized, and they will live with those consequences as adults. If one of them wanted to leave the ATI sect, imagine how hard it would be to just walk away and start up life somewhere else. Not easy when an entire nation of people from all corners knows you by sight and know who your parents are and whatever embarrassing information may have circulated about you. "Oh look...it's Josie, you remember she cried because of X, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah". It's completely different when a child plays a role of a character on a series because the character is not real life...it's not their life...just a job. This is their real life. So, just like those nuts with the eight kids...John and Kate something...the children are likely to suffer negative consequences for their parents' choice to make money off exploiting their personal lives.

 

Famous people do manage to protect their children. How much is known of the personal lives of Will and Jada Smith's children, or the six children of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, or Julia Robert's twins, etc.? These are people who have chosen a high profile profession that puts them in the constant public eye, and yet, they have protected their children. For heavens sake, Chelsea Clinton had more privacy as POTUS's daughter...George Bush Jr.'s girls too...than the Duggar children. So, I think it's only natural and certainly not gossipy, for many to be concerned about the Duggar children and especially if they choose to adopt and doubly so when they are by their own admission strongly linked to a religious sect that has very bizarre notions about adopted children which could impact an adoptive child in a profoundly awful way.

 

I don't hate the Duggars at all. If they hadn't put themselves on "reality t.v." so that they are talked about all the time, they wouldn't even be on my radar. I am concerned about the children. I can be very concerned about the future of the children and not HATE the parents. There is a big difference between concern and hate. If I hate anything, it's the ATI belief system itself and the man who created it. That said, I don't hate him...I pity him...I think he's a megalomaniac who needs mental health treatment or jail... maybe a combo of both...jail for the physical abuse heaped on the residents of his juvenile treatment centers, and serious meds and therapy for the mental problem.

 

Faith

[nmoira]

By the way, since the Middle East has so much oil, it can afford the energy consumption of all of those big desalination plants.

And for areas outside the Middle East?

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

How come no one suggests limiting the resources spent on pets?

 

Pet health is definitely a first-world problem.

 

In another hemisphere, daughters are sold into marriage at 12, and pregnant shortly thereafter.  Boys, on the other hand, sometimes go to school....on the profits from the sale of their sisters.  Much will change if girls are valued equally with boys, but that requires massive change to social norms and beliefs held for centuries.

 

Not for nothing, but Malala Yousafzai was totally ripped off by the crusty old men in Stockholm.

:thumbdown:

[Haiku]

Timed abstinence is more effective, has no side effects, costs nothing, and empowers women.

 

It only empowers women if women have the right to say no. In many places of the world, poor women (or any women) do not have that right. 

[Orthodox6]

It only empowers women if women have the right to say no. In many places of the world, poor women (or any women) do not have that right. 

 

You are correct.  I clicked on "like" for her post, however, because I understood her intent to be describing the case for people in mostly stable situations, such as us who frequent this board. 

[nmoira]

How come no one suggests limiting the resources spent on pets?

 

 

There was a book that came out a couple of years ago that suggested just this, and, IIRC, a cover story for the New Scientist. But... there was controversy about the data. Here's a synopsis from earlier this year of the current state of things:

 

Is Pet Ownership Sustainable?

 

One major difference between the population of pets and people is that the former is not increasing at anywhere near the same rate globally. Also we do have myriad controls in place to manage the population of feral dogs and cats.

[FaithManor]

It only empowers women if women have the right to say no. In many places of the world, poor women (or any women) do not have that right. 

Exactly. In many cultures, a woman has NO rights in the matter. The man holds all the cards.

 

Here is an article on water contamination from pharmaceuticals:

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm

 

It's very telling. Overall, we are going to have a severe problem in the future unless we stem the tide of the amount of phama that both people and pets take. This means doing a lot more preventative medicine, and frankly, birth control pills may have to be rationed...there is growing concern about the amount of hormones everyone is being exposed to just from drinking water. Ecologically, this is a HUGE issue.

 

That said, it's very hard for me to not want free access to the pill to be given to women in third world countries where they have no voice or rights. Swallowing a pill everyday when husband, father, brother is not looking is just about the only control they can exercise over their own reproductive health issues.

 

That said, in many areas there would be GREAT benefit for the boys to receive better educations as well as the girls. Exposure to both biology and health education, plus world history, economics, and social achievements around the world may move them towards considering the females around them as equals and possessing the same basic human rights. This in turn could lead to more choice such as abstinence, NFP, condoms, diaphragms etc., less rape, and family planning based on more than just putting biology in the driver's seat. I have no problem with big families, I do have huge problems with women not having any choice in this matter when it is their bodies and mental health on the line to produce them.

 

Like I said in another post, my friend has been evacuated out of more than one country for assassination plots against her for teaching reading to women in her home while her husband ran medical clinics. Bringing education to many countries is far from easy and oft times, downright dangerous.