Jump to content

Menu

Serious question about the Duggars...


Guest inoubliable
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest inoubliable

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have no clue about her statistic (which it sounds like she admits is old and now prone to error), but her viewpoint is in response to a viewpoint that was pretty common when I was in elementary and high school.  I remember them telling us the world was becoming overpopulated, look at the square footage, not enough room, soon we'll be living under the sea, blah blah.  Then I started traveling and wondering what in the world they were smoking!  And the incredible thing is, a very intelligent person I was friends with bought into it and actually swore she'd never have kids to protect the world!  

 

So which is worse, a woman with a really basic education holding a sincere view very nicely, or a much higher educated person who's gullible enough to believe there's not enough room on the planet for more kids?  Oh yeah, and the world is getting smoking hot too.  It's amazing what we can be educated into believing.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population of only Jacksonville, FL stood shoulder to shoulder would span approxiamately 237.5 miles. If ONLY the citizens of Jacksonville stood shoulder to shoulder, they wouldn't all fit in a single line across the city.  I figured that out with a single google search to tell me that the population of Jacksonville is 836K people and a few moments of back of the envelope math.  That is not an "old statistic".  That is a fabricated mess of a "statistic".  

 

Substituting opinions for facts and not thinking critically about facts you do hear is hardly a pair of faults limited to the Duggars but man that is a doozy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111031-population-7-billion-earth-world-un-seven/

 

This quiz from Nat'l Geographic says all of us could fit shoulder to shoulder in the 500 sq miles of LA. So we could stand shoulder to shoulder in one city. I'm not validating any of her overpopulation claims, but she isn't that far off on that particular statistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no clue about her statistic (which it sounds like she admits is old and now prone to error), but her viewpoint is in response to a viewpoint that was pretty common when I was in elementary and high school.  I remember them telling us the world was becoming overpopulated, look at the square footage, not enough room, soon we'll be living under the sea, blah blah.  Then I started traveling and wondering what in the world they were smoking!  And the incredible thing is, a very intelligent person I was friends with bought into it and actually swore she'd never have kids to protect the world!  

 

So which is worse, a woman with a really basic education holding a sincere view very nicely, or a much higher educated person who's gullible enough to believe there's not enough room on the planet for more kids?  Oh yeah, and the world is getting smoking hot too.  It's amazing what we can be educated into believing.   ;)

 

Overpopulation doesn't have anything to do with how many humans you can squeeze onto the square footage of the planet. It has to do with the size of populations that the earth can sustain in industrialized societies. Energy use, food production, consumerism, water use-those are concerns of people concerned with overpopulation. Water is already a political issue for many states and nations. The population that the earth can *sustain* is the problem. How many people can fit on the planet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Sounds like a common and massive misunderstanding of what scientists mean by overpopulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days after DS21 was born, I was at home on the couch. My cousin was coming over so when the doorbell rang, I went ahead and answered the door. It was a nicky dressed guy in a suit handing out pamphlets about how overpopulation was going to destroy the Earth. Having just had a baby myself, I didn't have much tolerance for listening to his speech.

 

I did keep the pamphlet in DS's baby things for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, don't know where to start.  I guess facts would be a nice change.

 

  • An estimated 680 million chronically hungry people.
  • As population and hunger increase in the developing world, water availability for irrigation is declining.
  • The FAO estimates that by 2020, 135 million people may lose their land as a result of soil degradation.
  • Of the 20 countries that rank highest on the 2011 Failing States Index (published by Foreign Policy magazine), all but one have a total fertility rate of 3.5 or higher.
  • Between 1999 and 2011, the world’s population increased by 1 billion
  • 1983 Year that world grain production per person began to decline(ecofuture.org)
  • 1985 Year that humanity's demand for resources first exceeded supply(mec.ca)
  • 1989 Year that world fish catch per person began to decline(ecofuture.org)
  • 1999 Year that the world population reached 6 billion (US Census Bureau)
  • 2012 Year that the world population will reach 7 billion(US Census Bureau)
  • 2050 Year that the world population will reach 9.2 billion(US Census Bureau)
  • 3 Days for the world population to increase by that of San Francisco
  • 6 Months for the world population to increase by that of California
  • 200,000 World population growth each day
  • The richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent.
  • Only 17% of the world's population lives in industrialized countries
  • Every 20 minutes, the human population grows by about 3,000. At the same time another plant or animal becomes extinct (27,000 each year).
  • According to the U.N., if fertility were to stay constant at 1995-2000 levels, the world population would soar to 244 billion by 2150 and 134 trillion by 2300.

 

The problem is not "is there enough room for us all to stand shoulder to shoulder" the problem is - can we sustain this level of growth? 

 

Many people argue that "nature will take care of this."  What they mean is that there will be starvation or a plague or some other "natural" event that will reduce population.  Really?  This is an ideal?

 

Other people argue that "God would not allow us to overpopulate."  What ever happened to free will?

 

Most people look around, see enough "space" and think - "sure we can fit in more people."

 

Oh right - and the same people also deny climate change.  Funny, a trip to the Himalayas this year certainly showed us that there are some dramatic and drastic changes going on.  But you know, better to not believe what is not convenient.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111031-population-7-billion-earth-world-un-seven/

 

This quiz from Nat'l Geographic says all of us could fit shoulder to shoulder in the 500 sq miles of LA. So we could stand shoulder to shoulder in one city. I'm not validating any of her overpopulation claims, but she isn't that far off on that particular statistic.

 

Every person in the world could have 1000 sf of their own in Texas. The world is big. If only the resources were evenly distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Across vs in.

 

They're saying you could squish, standing, the entire population of the world in LA. Like in a phone booth, but feet on the ground.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every person in the world could have 1000 sf of their own in Texas. The world is big. If only the resources were evenly distributed.

 

Seems to me the current population of Texas already has a few resource issues, particularly with water. Not sure they'd welcome the entire planet. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the current population of Texas already has a few resource issues, particularly with water. Not sure they'd welcome the entire planet. :)

 

Oklahoma tried to sell water to Texas. However, Native American tribes hold sovereignty over water rights, so the state of Oklahoma couldn't sell it. Just a random point of interest. One of many ways that water has become highly political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oklahoma tried to sell water to Texas. However, Native American tribes hold sovereignty over water rights, so the state of Oklahoma couldn't sell it. Just a random point of interest. One of many ways that water has become highly political.

 

No kidding. We have a mess in the Klamath River basin. But we're still better off than Turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me the current population of Texas already has a few resource issues, particularly with water. Not sure they'd welcome the entire planet. :)

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sadly true... and no way we'd let the whole durn world come to Texas. We have no water backup plans if the Zebra Mussel gets into more of our lakes. And T. Boone Pickens would love to sell his "Panhandle" water to us (a la California Aquaduct system) in the other parts of TX for a boatload of $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in a city that has almost used up its water supply.  Let me repeat that - Bangalore - a city of 8.4 MILLION people is in the middle of a MAJOR water crisis - with no end in site.

 

My community has NO civic water.  None,  not a drop.  Other communities get water for a few hours a day.

 

We get water tankers that bring water from outside of the city and fill our storage tank.

 

Wells across the city are drying up.   Those who can afford it will keep paying an escalating price for water until we can't afford even that.

 

I told DH that I believe that it will be the water crises that drives us out of India.

 

But, sure, there is a lot of "space" in India - just no water to use to ....live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, it just hit me that she means shoulder to shoulder packed like sardines, not in a line. Shoulder to shoulder always evokes a chorus line in my head.

Now *that* would be a sight to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me thinks that Michelle Duggar has not experienced witnessing a festival in India and the hundreds of thousands of people who walk in and out -- literally shoulder to shoulder like sardines. 

 

You are right.  It is always the privileged minority from the rich West that feels overpopulation is not a problem.  Of course, if the West started reducing consumption of natural resources to the level of those people in Asian and Africa would could sustain growth much, much longer.  The problem is the West consumes FAR in excess of their proportional natural resources.  Come to India and see if over population and resource strain is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty common thought.

 

I don't "believe" in overpopulation myself. Now,I'm not nearly educated enough in the topic to have a debate or write a dissertation, but it appears that we mostly have a misuse of resources and political issues. Water, for instance, is scarce in my home town. Yet the home owners association requires a certain greenness to the lawns. So people still watered their lawn in the middle of the afternoon. It took the city three years of heavy political arguing to enforce water restrictions.

 

From a religious standpoint, the world is made to sustain everyone for all of time. Perhaps she's referring to it religiously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty common thought.

 

I don't "believe" in overpopulation myself. Now,I'm not nearly educated enough in the topic to have a debate or write a dissertation, but it appears that we mostly have a misuse of resources and political issues. Water, for instance, is scarce in my home town. Yet the home owners association requires a certain greenness to the lawns. So people still watered their lawn in the middle of the afternoon. It took the city three years of heavy political arguing to enforce water restrictions.

 

From a religious standpoint, the world is made to sustain everyone for all of time. Perhaps she's referring to it religiously.

 

In much of the world, it's not misuse.  There are too many people for limited resources, no matter how well they conserve.

 

I suppose the religious viewpoint does have it right in a way.  When we use up all the resources, we'll all die.  So from our point of view, it'll be the end of the world.  I suppose that's not what they mean, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In much of the world, it's not misuse. There are too many people for limited resources, no matter how well they conserve.

 

I suppose the religious viewpoint does have it right in a way. When we use up all the resources, we'll all die. So from our point of view, it'll be the end of the world. I suppose that's not what they mean, though...

I don't know what Michele believes, but I was referring more to the fact that God made the world to sustain everyone forever. When He restores the earth and makes it perfect again it will do that. My religion doesn't believe people die and go to Heaven, but that we will all live in paradise earth. Anyway, that's neither here nor there I suppose! Sorry to derail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agrre with Cammie and Mrs. Mungo. I also have another concern. The Duggars have stated fairly often

their desire to have twenty children. There is a focus on this number that appears to be fixation

almost. She stated recently that they were prayerfully considering adoption in order to achieve 20.

Not only am I concerned about the motivation because a child deserves to be more than to just be a magic

number,but also the spector of possible attachment issues and the fact that the younger children in the

family spend a lot of time being cared for if not de factor raised by older siblings, a family dynamic

that could prevent proper bonding.

 

It could be okay. But the family is ATI and there are strong similarities between ATI recommended

disciplinary guidelines and the Pearls. Gothard believes and teaches that demons must be cast from

adopted children because the unknown sins of the parents are visited down to the child. The Pearls

advocate all kinds of abuse centered around breaking the adopted child. Though the show is edited in such

a way that Michelle and JimBob are presented as eternally patient and kind, due to the religious movement

they willingly associate with, I personally hope no adoption agency or attorney will work with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]The richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent.

 

This is the problem.

 

We could give the money saved from not eating out and growing a garden instead of grass to the poor, but why are there so many poor? It is often because of war. It feels hopeless sometimes... But I do what I can. I know I need to do more.

 

I want to add my thoughts on population control: I think that it is wrong to tell people what to do with their fertility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want to add my thoughts on population control: I think that it is wrong to tell people what to do with their fertility.

 

I don't think anyone on this board is advocating a China style one child mandate.... or any mandate at all.  However, I believe that fertility decisions should be made consciously and with full knowledge of all the facts.  People having 20 children because they believe "over population is not a problem" are not making wise decisions.  Do they have the right to make wrong decisions - sure.  Do we have the right to be upset that families in the nations that consume the most see no problem in having more than replacement levels of fertility (ie, two children to two parents) of course we have the right to be upset.  We are on this planet too.  Our children and grand children will inherit this mess. And where there is no water, or wars over water, they are the ones who will have to face it.  When climate change starts to impact the deniers it will be too late to get a "do over." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think increasing literacy, political stability, relative economic stability, and accessible birth control where the parents can CHOOSE to use it without fear are key to peace-with or without population decrease.  I think the population is less a problem than the instability formed by keeping billions of people poor and illiterate. With more education, hopefully better choices will be available. But that's hard to implement, obviously.  I do not think forced population control is an acceptable choice EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone on this board is advocating a China style one child mandate.... or any mandate at all. However, I believe that fertility decisions should be made consciously and with full knowledge of all the facts. People having 20 children because they believe "over population is not a problem" are not making wise decisions. Do they have the right to make wrong decisions - sure. Do we have the right to be upset that families in the nations that consume the most see no problem in having more than replacement levels of fertility (ie, two children to two parents) of course we have the right to be upset. We are on this planet too. Our children and grand children will inherit this mess. And where there is no water, or wars over water, they are the ones who will have to face it. When climate change starts to impact the deniers it will be too late to get a "do over."

This assumes so much. I think the Duggars are extreme, but there are much worse parents all around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, if you remove the travel they do for the show, the Duggars have a smaller resource "footprint" per person than most Americans. That's relative of course, as Americans are the most intensive users of resources.

 

I think her stance is not unusual for Americans of limited education who live in anti-intellectual and anti-scientific subcultures (which include but aren't limited to many fundamentalist religious backgrounds). She probably doesn't believe global climate change or evolution are valid either (no probably about evolution, they're young-earthers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone on this board is advocating a China style one child mandate.... or any mandate at all.  However, I believe that fertility decisions should be made consciously and with full knowledge of all the facts.  People having 20 children because they believe "over population is not a problem" are not making wise decisions.  Do they have the right to make wrong decisions - sure.  Do we have the right to be upset that families in the nations that consume the most see no problem in having more than replacement levels of fertility (ie, two children to two parents) of course we have the right to be upset.  We are on this planet too.  Our children and grand children will inherit this mess. And where there is no water, or wars over water, they are the ones who will have to face it.  When climate change starts to impact the deniers it will be too late to get a "do over." 

I have five kids.  Let me know which to toss out to the dogs.  Because obviously that will give water to Bangalor.  This isn't about people in America having a bunch of kids. FWIW, America and most developed nations (last I checked) are at or under replacement level except for immigration.  Life expectancy is also increasing.  I don't see anyone saying we should stop providing medical care for people over 50.  I hope not, at least.  I'm glad if I've missed it. :D  It's about world wide overconsumption and wastage.  It's about a lack of options in countries and regions with this sort of horror. 

 

Handy dandy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mrs Duggar does not understand what overpopulation means.

I think it is probably due to her religious beliefs, but also rooted in ignorance.

I'm guessing that having twenty children would keep you too busy to research much of anything. It's been over twenty years since she could really focus on her own education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the grand scheme of things so few people in the western world are having 20 kids a family that the patriarchal/quiver-full movement the Duggars belong to is not really a significant factor in overpopulation at all.  I tend to agree that telling people to limit their family size due to overpopulation concerns is not really getting at the heart of the issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have five kids.  Let me know which to toss out to the dogs.  Because obviously that will give water to Bangalor.  This isn't about people in America having a bunch of kids. FWIW, America and most developed nations (last I checked) are at or under replacement level except for immigration.  Life expectancy is also increasing.  I don't see anyone saying we should stop providing medical care for people over 50.  I hope not, at least.  I'm glad if I've missed it. :D  It's about world wide overconsumption and wastage.  It's about a lack of options in countries and regions with this sort of horror. 

 

Handy dandy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

 

Really?  That was your take away from my post?  That I would advocate you getting rid of some of your kids?

 

What I was advocating was an approach to family size that took into account the impact on the planet - an approach that apparently many conservatives would scoff at.  I have a very full understanding of the issus, I still had children.  Having children and raising a family is one of the greatest joys of being human.  However, I don't think that means (for me) a need to have as many children as I can.

 

You are correct that population growth is close to replacement levels in most Western countries and that life expectency is increasing.  No one here has argued that increasing life expectency is a bad thing.  However it is one more point in the argument that there are factors that need to be taken into account by those who argue that "over population is not a problem."

 

But you are not correct when you argue that this is an issue of "world wide overconsumption and wastage."  Families who live in countries where water, electricity and other items that Americans take for granted are not "over consuming" those resources.  People who are living in villages are not wasting resources.

 

I find it interesting that people in the US point to it being a "global" issue or a "world wide" problem - when every study, every report details how it is the consumption pattern in the West that is unsustainable.  We are in major trouble, as a species, if the rest of the world actually adopts US consumption rates (which is exactly what US companies want the world to do.)

 

It seems to me that the argument that people want to make is that - the US should be able to do what it wants, consume what it wants, have has many kids as we want...but all you other countries - you poor countries, you African and Asian countries - you people should really watch your population issues and your consumption patterns.  Stop wasting so much and over consuming.  Unless they are making the other argument which is - we can do whatever we want to the plantet because God said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not having more people that creates waste - it's the people that are already here being consumers that creates waste. It's a lack of farming and domestic skills, a lack of know-how when it comes to fixing things, cheap goods shipped internationally, boxed dinners, etc.

 

If you want to advocate for lifestyle changes that impact the planet's resources, you might get farther with this audience by promoting self-sufficiency, thrifting, hanging laundry to dry, rewearing clothes till they're dirty, showering every other day, giving to World Vision or Compassion International or another organization, buying a cow, a chicken, a goat for an impoverished family at Christmas in lieu of shopping the Black Friday deals at the local Walmart store, using the library or a kindle instead of shipping books -new or used - to your home, becoming a one car or no car family, etc.

 

There are so many better ways to do our part than limit the number of people - made in the image of God and for His glory. Jesus Christ came to save people, not the planet. Many posters on here believe this and it strikes a nerve when you say the answer is to reject life by limiting it.

 

It is good to protect the planet. The Lord created it all and gave dominion over it to mankind and we need to be good stewards. We can do that and have more babies. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not having more people that creates waste - it's the people that are already here being consumers that creates waste. It's a lack of farming and domestic skills, a lack of know-how when it comes to fixing things, cheap goods shipped internationally, boxed dinners, etc.

 

If you want to advocate for lifestyle changes that impact the planet's resources, you might get farther with this audience by promoting self-sufficiency, thrifting, hanging laundry to dry, rewearing clothes till they're dirty, showering every other day, giving to World Vision or Compassion International or another organization, buying a cow, a chicken, a goat for an impoverished family at Christmas in lieu of shopping the Black Friday deals at the local Walmart store, using the library or a kindle instead of shipping books -new or used - to your home, becoming a one car or no car family, etc.

 

There are so many better ways to do our part than limit the number of people - made in the image of God and for His glory. Jesus Christ came to save people, not the planet. Many posters on here believe this and it strikes a nerve when you say the answer is to reject life by limiting it.

 

It is good to protect the planet. The Lord created it all and gave dominion over it to mankind and we need to be good stewards. We can do that and have more babies. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

 

It's not as if the world can sustain an infinite number of people if they all just recycle and give handmade Christmas presents.  There is a limit to how many people the resources of the world can support.  It's not a happy thing to think about, and there's no solution that's going to make everyone happy, but it is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not having more people that creates waste - it's the people that are already here being consumers that creates waste. It's a lack of farming and domestic skills, a lack of know-how when it comes to fixing things, cheap goods shipped internationally, boxed dinners, etc.

 

If you want to advocate for lifestyle changes that impact the planet's resources, you might get farther with this audience by promoting self-sufficiency, thrifting, hanging laundry to dry, rewearing clothes till they're dirty, showering every other day, giving to World Vision or Compassion International or another organization, buying a cow, a chicken, a goat for an impoverished family at Christmas in lieu of shopping the Black Friday deals at the local Walmart store, using the library or a kindle instead of shipping books -new or used - to your home, becoming a one car or no car family, etc.

 

There are so many better ways to do our part than limit the number of people - made in the image of God and for His glory. Jesus Christ came to save people, not the planet. Many posters on here believe this and it strikes a nerve when you say the answer is to reject life by limiting it.

 

It is good to protect the planet. The Lord created it all and gave dominion over it to mankind and we need to be good stewards. We can do that and have more babies. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

I agree that all your ideas are good ones and I understand that on this Board they might be the more acceptable ones.

 

I also understand that advocating positions that are not in line with the religious beliefs of certain groups will also, as you say, "strike a nerve" on this Board.

 

There are some positions that are simply incompatible.  I appreciate the kind way in which you expressed yours and I will simply say that it is my opinion and part of my religious beliefs that God gave us free will and that includes the freedom to decide how big our families should be.  I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that all your ideas are good ones and I understand that on this Board they might be the more acceptable ones.

 

I also understand that advocating positions that are not in line with the religious beliefs of certain groups will also, as you say, "strike a nerve" on this Board.

 

There are some positions that are simply incompatible. I appreciate the kind way in which you expressed yours and I will simply say that it is my opinion and part of my religious beliefs that God gave us free will and that includes the freedom to decide how big our families should be. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Thank you for your kind words, Cammie.

 

I very much agree with you that the world cannot sustain the current rate of consumption.

 

I also agree with you that God gave us free will to include deciding family size.

 

I think I sounded Quiverfull in my previous post. I am not. I think it is a very personal decision for each couple to decide - this is where I think we might begin to disagree - without the pressure from outside influences either way. More babies, less babies, no babies - this is each couples' decision. In my marriage, it is between my husband and me with the Lord's leading.

 

When I stated that limiting life was not an answer, I meant as a society in the name of population control. I do not mean to tell others how to go about their personal business.

 

Thank you for the reminder to use less. I need to hear that.

 

You really live in India? That's so cool. We live in Okinawa. I'm so glad we have this opportunity to live overseas. It has changed me. I want to go to the Philippines next summer. I wish I had done more traveling pre-kids, especially humanitarian-focused mission trips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overpopulation doesn't have anything to do with how many humans you can squeeze onto the square footage of the planet. It has to do with the size of populations that the earth can sustain in industrialized societies. Energy use, food production, consumerism, water use-those are concerns of people concerned with overpopulation. Water is already a political issue for many states and nations. The population that the earth can *sustain* is the problem. How many people can fit on the planet has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

Sounds like a common and massive misunderstanding of what scientists mean by overpopulation. 

 

Exactly! To think that the world is not over populated because there is still some free land available is absurd! In fact all habitable areas of the world are already populated by humans and if there are vast barren areas they are either deserts, difficult mountains, forests or ice sheets. We still do need the forests, though they are disappearing at an alarming rate.

 

India packs about 4 times as much as the population of US in one third as much land. This is true for most developing nations and one of the main reasons for this disparity in land distribution is due to the economic disparity. If people care about reducing poverty around the world (and I hope they do) then they cannot do this by being overpopulation deniers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone on this board is advocating a China style one child mandate.... or any mandate at all.  However, I believe that fertility decisions should be made consciously and with full knowledge of all the facts.  People having 20 children because they believe "over population is not a problem" are not making wise decisions.  Do they have the right to make wrong decisions - sure.  Do we have the right to be upset that families in the nations that consume the most see no problem in having more than replacement levels of fertility (ie, two children to two parents) of course we have the right to be upset.  We are on this planet too.  Our children and grand children will inherit this mess. And where there is no water, or wars over water, they are the ones who will have to face it.  When climate change starts to impact the deniers it will be too late to get a "do over." 

 

Thank you for saying this Cammie. Making family size decisions based not only on what is good for the individual, but on what is good for the planet is not the same as forced population control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most 'pain free' ways of reducing population is to educate women, to high school level at a minimum. Educated women tend to have less children and start having them later. If a woman delays having children until she is thirty, she is unlike to have as many children. But the big difference is in the number of generations born in a century. If a woman has her first child at thirty, and her daughter follows this pattern, only 3 generations are possible in a century. If the woman has her first child a 20 and her daughter follows this pattern, 4 generations are possible. This has major implications for population growth (and I wish I could find the excellent article I read with the figures on this).

 

Two analogies I really like:

Imagine the world is a big buffet lunch. There are 100 people at the buffet. If the first 20 people to line up took 80% of the food, the remaining 80 people would have to share the left over 20%. So what do you think of the first 20? Bit selfish? That's us: the "developed world" has scoffed 80% of the worlds resources, leaving 80% of the people on the planet to live on our scraps. And that's just the people. There is little regard for the resources of the millions of animals who also rely on this planet.

 

Population works like bacteria in a Petrie dish. The growth starts small, increases almost imperceptibly, until it reaches a noticeable level, then all of a sudden it covers half the dish. It takes one more growth cycle and the dish is full. The next step is complete death because all the resources are gone.

 

Fabulous posts, Cammie!

Danielle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I will say, if you remove the travel they do for the show, the Duggars have a smaller resource "footprint" per person than most Americans1.jpg2.jpg3.jpg4.jpg5.jpg

 

Do they? Perhaps. But not by as much as you might think. They use disposable diapers, disposable plates, cups, etc for all those meals, drive gigantic vehicles, and live in a house 6 or 7x the size of mine (for a family only 4x bigger). They use swifter-type products. They don't garden and eat a lot of food from cans that have likely been shipped thousands of miles. I don't think their per-capita footprint is all that low!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that having twenty children would keep you too busy to research much of anything. It's been over twenty years since she could really focus on her own education.

 

And most likely the "study" involved ATI materials which are not known for their depth and accuracy.  We know a family who educated with those materials for over a decade, and the inaccuracies and lack of critical thinking would curl your hair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most 'pain free' ways of reducing population is to educate women, to high school level at a minimum. Educated women tend to have less children and start having them later. If a woman delays having children until she is thirty, she is unlike to have as many children. But the big difference is in the number of generations born in a century. If a woman has her first child at thirty, and her daughter follows this pattern, only 3 generations are possible in a century. If the woman has her first child a 20 and her daughter follows this pattern, 4 generations are possible. This has major implications for population growth (and I wish I could find the excellent article I read with the figures on this).

 

Fabulous posts, Cammie!

Danielle

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

One time I was talking with a mom who had been to a very narrowly-focused Christian college and then went into ATI for a number of years.  She told me that when she was in college, almost no one questioned the viewpoints of the professors.  Those who questioned eventually left that college.  Then when they homeschooled with ATI, she assumed that it was 100% correct.  They didn't use anything else for some time.  

 

Eventually they did leave ATI, but she freely admitted that it was tough to leave behind what had been presented as absolutes that didn't need to be questioned. Thankfully the girls in that family are in secular colleges, and are doing fine and working through the many issues they need to face as adults.

 

I know a number of ex-ATI and current ATI families, and it definitely is something to be aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And most likely the "study" involved ATI materials which are not known for their depth and accuracy.  We know a family who educated with those materials for over a decade, and the inaccuracies and lack of critical thinking would curl your hair.

Bingo!

 

It is specifically designed so that critical thinking skills are NOT taught. If one thinks logically, one has a tendency to reject the tyranny of the likes of Bill Gothard and his ilk. So, there is a deliberate attempt to prevent much maturity of thought. It's a very rote, grammar stage program all the way through high school. One memorizes "facts" most of which are not supported or substantiated and regurgitates them, but never does anything useful with them and certainly research is a no-no. One would not do research because one could read something bad, the instrument of the devil. In the ATI families that my dad and mom have done counseling with...people who had a "come to Jesus" moment, so to speak, and decided to leave, EVERTHING was carefully controlled. They did not have periodicals of any kind, only just the Newsletter from ATI. They did not use the library. They did not own books that were not purchased from ATI or that were not on the approved list for the curriculum. These homes were devoid of reading material, and the internet was not allowed unless the father needed it for work (so funny that Gothard has a website...there's some logical thinking for ya :blink: ), and the dad tightly controlled access to it. Sometimes even the phone was totally restricted with women receiving punishment for using it without their husband's sanction. Children were not allowed to use it for any purpose. For the most part, the only friends one could have were other ATI members.

 

As I said before, I truly hope no adoption agency works with the Duggars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Countdown-Last-Best-Future-Earth/dp/0316097756/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-151&qid=1381410661

 

Which I heard about on Science Friday here:

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/04/229206781/countdown-explores-the-effects-of-our-overpopulated-planet

 

Just posting because this just came on my radar... thought some of you might want to listen, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe in global overpopulation. Specific area overpopulation, yes. Some areas can sustain it's population where as others cannot due to resources or political mess. On a global level, there are enough resources to sustain life, it is a matter of finding ways to spread the resources to a global population that seems to be the problem.

 

Saying that an area in Africa(or where ever) is overpopulated and the people are starving there should be the deciding factor of someone in a country/area with enough to have a child is just ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...