While I applaud Pope Francis for his interest in the environment the problem that’s driving climate change isn’t unsustainable consumption – it’s unsustainable population growth. If we don’t stop world wide population growth then no amount of austerity or technology is going to save us. We need birth control.

It’s simple math. If we cut our resource usage in half and the population doubles we have gained nothing. We live on a finite sized planet with a growing population. That isn’t sustainable.

One of the leading causes of population growth is the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control. If the Pope is truly interested in climate change he should reverse this church policy. The Pope is in a unique position to impact the climate and it is irresponsible for him not to act. If the Pope reversed on birth control and asked families to limit themselves to 2 children he would have more impact on climate change than anything the United Nations can do.



  1. Average Random Joe says:

    Sounds like Malthusian math. Your argument isn’t novel, population growth vs resource growth has been anticipated for centuries.

    • Average Random Joe says:

      *Anticipating doom for centuries

      • Marc Perkel says:

        Maybe we should do something about it before we hit the limit?

        • noname says:

          Marc, you’re fickle, but definitely yes; you should do something about it before we hit the limit!

          You seem bigoted against the newborn, why? Did one bite, pee or poop on you?

          In your Wednesday May 20, 2015 posting you want to Reverse Aging and ideally live forever. Now, 29 days later, Thursday June 18, 2015 you suggest we limit population growth with birth control (throwing religion into the debate to hide your motives), to make room for those who never die (presumably you).

          If you really want to do humanity honest good, then ok; let’s do this right, cut 20% off the world’s population by turning old farts (you know, like the moderators of DU) into a affordable fav delicacy, on the cheap, like Soylent Green!

          After all, youth is humanities locomotive of progressive development! Feeding the world’s population with an affordable delicacy like Soylent Green should hasten humanities progressive microeconomic refresh cycle and resolve youth unemployment!

          What say you?

          You should be heading over to one of soylent green convenient processing centers now!

          • Average Random Joe says:

            No, we don’t have to do anything explict as Malthus proved (accidentally because he preached the doom you are supporting and it didn’t come true for about 200 years.) that Technology and the markets will take care of resources. When you explicitly meddle, you mess with the law of unintended consequences which requires more resources to combat the mess made. Then the government can start a war, kill some people and there we go. Problem solved.

          • noname says:

            Too bad you don’t understand sarcasm and/or irony “he preached the doom you are supporting”! Creative problem solving must be overly challenging for you?

        • Average Random Joe says:

          Were you not listening? That is exactly what Malthus said 200 years ago. Doomsday prophets have been shrieking for a long time that the limit is around the corner and have yet to be proven right.

  2. Tom says:

    Can we just rename this blog to “Perkel Uncensored” and be done with it!

    • Marc Pugner says:

      yeah, John never even seems to drop by these days.

    • Benjamin says:

      These are not John’s views on this blog. It’s Marc’s view. The warmists and the Malthusians are people John calls dispicable on the No Agenda Show. Either submit to John’s views or step down.

  3. Ron Retro says:

    Once resources are gone then birth control will kick in – retroactively.

    • spsffan says:

      Absolutely true. Nature’s a bitch that way. But wouldn’t it be nice if, just once in mankind’s era, that we nip disaster in the bud ?

      Again I propose, neutron bombing the Middle East.
      1. Reduces population
      2. Rids the world of a nasty bunch of religious kooks
      3. Leaves the infrastructure intact for future use
      4. After the initial outrage, the world will realize what a great deed was done and give us credit.

      • ± says:

        http://petacamisetas.es/images/FUCKING%20A%20LOGO.jpg

                                ❗

      • Average Random Joe says:

        You would get the same (if not with a higher degree) benefits with the location being San Fran or New York.

        Just once in man kinds era nip the Malthusian disaster in the bud. The irony that you say this while living in a period of huge abundance that you can sit and make that statement instead of subsistence farming is not lost on me.

  4. Tommy says:

    Most Catholics never paid attention to the birth control ban anyway. Maybe in 3rd world countries, but not in the so-called “civilized” countries.

  5. Tommy says:

    BTW, the biggest contributor to global warming is….are you ready???

    THE SUN.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
    Yup.

    “In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. ”

    Science, what a bitch.

    • DonW says:

      Yes, yes, yes, but it is much harder to advocate a social agenda if it is the sun and not thoughtless people who are causing climate change.

      Notice how they changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ just in case some cooling is measured. They want to be able to tell us what to do no matter what!

      • ± says:

         
         
                        Exactly so!

        • bobbo, in point of fact says:

          Exactly…. BS. The name change was because idiots like you gained traction by bringing snowballs into congress and claiming it was cold last night.

          Both “labels” are accurate if you define them as intended.

          Global Warming: refers to the AVERAGE worldwide.

          Climate Change: refers to some places will get colder while most others will get warmer.

          See how that works?

          • Average Random Joe says:

            Or the name change was to keep the doomsday zealots a reason to keep believing in the agenda being pushed and keep up the chorus of shout-downs to provide cover. If we say that the emperor’s clothes are so fine, only the idiot can’t see or feel it then we will control the narrative. Now change the clothes to the sky is falling and you have . . . the current alarmist narrative. You can’t understand these models, only the clergy can understand. And we prove it with those same models. The same alarmists that have been calling for the end of times for a long, long time. Just keep that faith going. Maybe it will one day pay off.

          • bobbo, in point of fact says:

            “The same alarmists that have been calling for the end of times for a long, long time.” //// what “same” alarmists?==in context, the Climate Scientists?

            They have been warning about Climate Change for about 30 years now. Do you mean that long, long, time or do you have these folks engaged in other alarmist activities as well?

          • ± says:

            The terminology change (from “global warming” to “climate change”) came at exactly the same time there was enough data to support that the earth’s rate of warming was drastically decelerating. If you don’t acknowledge the politics in this, it is further proof that AGW truly is your religion.

          • Average Random Joe says:

            The Malthusians that have claimed doom for 200 ish years. And they have had zealots with the same doom, just with a different coat of paint since. People grow exponential and resources can only grow linearly so overpopulation and destruction is inevitable unless we step in and stop it. That isn’t something that was created when anyone now was alive, but long, long before that.

          • bobbo, in point of fact says:

            ± says:
            6/19/2015 at 11:44 am

            The terminology change (from “global warming” to “climate change”) came at exactly the same time there was enough data to support that the earth’s rate of warming was drastically decelerating. //// It can at exactly the same time as trillions of other events and close in time to trillions more. What is your point besides pulling your pants down to the ground?

            If you don’t acknowledge the politics in this, it is further proof that AGW truly is your religion. /// Of course politics is involved. what is your point besides pulling your sand coated undies down to the ground?

            What a moran.

            Re Malthus: the Point of The Boy who Cried Wolf is that….. eventually the wolf does show up……..and eats everyone.

            Try to figure out what that means.

          • Average Random Joe says:

            bobbo, the point seems to be lost on you. If you call wolf for centuries, why would you be surprised when people are skeptical of the crying of wolf. Is this the real wolf this time or the fake one? We don’t know but if 200 years is any indication, it isn’t real. You seem to be the one not understanding how that fable applies to the situation here.

            And what fable are you reading? I haven’t ever heard of everyone getting eaten, only the flock and occasionally the boy. Oh I see, more hyperbole by the zealot.

  6. spsffan says:

    If they are going to die they should do it, and reduce the surplus population. – E. Scrooge

  7. NewFormatSux says:

    The UN projects that the population of the planet will peak and then decline. There will no more doubling of population.

    Cutting emissions in half also does not reduce global warming substantially enough. Scientists are calling for about a 90% cut.

    Current EPA proposals are about .02C of global warming prevented.

  8. Witless Number 2 says:

    Wow! That’s just TOO INTELLIGENT! Reduce the number of people contributing to global warming and we just might not have a planet full of trash. That makes sense…

    However, you just know this theory won’t fly within any of those religious circles. And that’s because of traditions and a few drunken halfwits who, 700 to 2000 or more years ago, learned how to write believable fairy tales — one of which involves a fuckless pregnancy!

  9. SKINET says:

    They’re against abortion and against being gay. They should support the gays, because who’s going to have fewer abortions than the gays?

    “Christians are against abortions AND they’re against homosexuals. Well, who has less … religion?” – George Carlin. … All the church donations, & golden chalices could be melted down, exchanged for money. That would go …going going gone!

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

  10. ± says:

    More Catholics = good, less Catholics = bad. Get it?

    The “have as many babies as possible” thrust of the Catholic Church is self-serving. There is ZERO other agenda.

  11. NewFormatSux says:

    Shouldn’t you provide some evidence that it is Catholic countries that are behind the increase in population?

    • Average Random Joe says:

      Being that the 2 countries with the highest population are not and the two world regions that currently have the highest population growth (Africa and Southeast Asia) aren’t a majority Christian, I would expect that evidence hard to come by.

  12. bobbo, in point of fact says:

    Yep…. same reason Mother Tereas was no Saint: she CAUSED the very conditions she worked so tirelessly to provide relief to….except to actually prevent the poverty conditions to begin with. Half read an article that she wanted the suffering of poor people so as to bring them closer to God.

    That notion is so repugnant, and so consistent with what I think, that I didn’t need to read much of it. I can pimp myself.

    • Average Random Joe says:

      You know what I find repugnant. Someone that complains that someone helped others while sitting at their computer in a trailer. What a pathetic cynic, criticizing someone that helped others, that did what they could while they whine like a crusty troll.

      Preventing the conditions takes time, like generations. I know that you can’t imagine but there are people that need now and the prevention won’t arrive in time for them. She was one person doing what she could for those people leaving others to work on the conditions.

      What have you done to prevent the poverty conditions recently?

      • bobbo, in point of fact says:

        Well…. we agree on the issue. Just not causation.

        Before, during, and after Sister Teresa and the Catholic Church CAUSED the very poverty conditions they supposedly work so hard to provide relief from.

        “In point of fact”—if you want to help the poor, YES you give them food and shelter…..BUT…you also give them access to birth control, education, and healthcare. You help them become INDEPENDENT and self sufficient….. not wards of the Catholic Church.

        I never criticized her for handing out food. I criticiaed her for creating the conditions in which food had to be handed out.

        See the difference?

        • Average Random Joe says:

          SHE created conditions in which food had to be handed out? Citation needed.

          I fail to see how giving people everything makes them independent and self sufficient though. Seems a contradiction in terms.

          If that Church provided the entire healthcare, education, and food, you would still consider them creating wards out of the poor people.

          And you missed my point, she was one person helping the living part leaving the self sufficient part to others. If you wait until someone starving learns to fish and give them nothing in the meantime, you have a lot of dead students. She was giving people fish to those that needed something immediately, allowing others to do the teaching to fish part. Because she was only one person and can’t do everything. Especially when there are the arm chair morality quarterbacks, those that do nothing and criticize that those that do something didn’t do it right or enough of it. You hide it with you vague, she did some mean stuff to people. Disgusting really.

  13. orchidcup says:

    “One of the leading causes of population growth is the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control. If the Pope is truly interested in climate change he should reverse this church policy.”

    Your statement assumes that overpopulation occurs only in nations that are predominantly Catholic. Hindus and Buddhists, for example, also procreate enthusiastically.

    Selective sterilization at the moment of birth would be the most effective method of birth control for any overpopulated nation, but problems arise from the debate concerning the selection process.

    • Average Random Joe says:

      Ya, let’s bring back the eugenics ideas. That worked out well.

      • bobbo, in point of fact says:

        State Mandated Eugenics almost cant work just as you say. But how about at least allowing Eugenics by the free choice of people who wish to engage?

        You see===the problem is not Eugenics, but the role of the State in any such activities.

        Work on it.

        • Average Random Joe says:

          “Selective sterilization at the moment of birth” is not “the free choice of people who wish to engage” and those methods are all available and paid for by most established economies.

          Eugenics can’t be don’t without the state. Selecting the best to reproduce and keeping the worst from reproducing can’t be done without a state to decide what best means. Otherwise, the system already allowed and continues to allow people to voluntarily not procreate offspring.

  14. bobbo, in point of fact says:

    Average Random Joe says:
    6/22/2015 at 10:22 am

    SHE created conditions in which food had to be handed out? Citation needed./// She/Catholic Church are against birth control, family planning, abortions thereby condemning many poor people to a life of poverty…… more souls to save for Christ. A bit hyperbolic…but I think fair.

    I fail to see how giving people everything makes them independent and self sufficient though. Seems a contradiction in terms. /// Ok…fair point if you want to use your intellect to fail to see the point: “give them” the CONDITIONS on which they can be independent. Eg: without having kiddies to raise, they can go to college. Stuff like that. “give them” means access to education based on merit as opposed to ability to pay.

    If that Church provided the entire healthcare, education, and food, you would still consider them creating wards out of the poor people. /// I never said or thought the Church should be giving them that stuff….or anything else….RATHER it would be society. Society creating the conditions on which its members could succeed without the need for the charity of the Church.

    And you missed my point, she was one person helping the living part leaving the self sufficient part to others. //// I hardly Missed your point when I directly denied it.

    If you wait until someone starving learns to fish and give them nothing in the meantime, you have a lot of dead students. /// Correct. Thats why the education and healthcare UNAVOIDABLY comes before they can’t feed themselves. Can you follow a point?

    She was giving people fish to those that needed something immediately, allowing others to do the teaching to fish part. /// No–she/the Church was actively involved in denying people the ability to fish (family plan) for themselves.

    Because she was only one person and can’t do everything. Especially when there are the arm chair morality quarterbacks, those that do nothing and criticize that those that do something didn’t do it right or enough of it. You hide it with you vague, she did some mean stuff to people. Disgusting really. /// You have a disrupting typo there. I was NOT vague, I said the notion that she thought people suffering brought them closer to God was disgusting. That notion is behind a lot of Catholic interference in the otherwise free choices the majority of people would make…like end of life decisions and so forth.

    • Average Random Joe says:

      “A bit hyperbolic…but I think fair.”

      When is hyperbole ever fair? That is a contradiction in terms.

      “if you want to use your intellect to fail to see the point”

      Projecting a little, huh?

      Mother Teresa’s poor were in INDIA. Not a Christian, let alone Catholic, country.

      “means access to education based on merit as opposed to ability to pay.”

      The Catholic church is well known for its educational facilities in impoverished areas that does just what you are wishing they would do. But your dogmatic agenda won’t see that, will it. And don’t get started on healthcare. Mother Teresa, have you read anything about what the woman did? YES

      “I never said or thought the Church should be giving them that stuff”

      Actually you said that exactly. “you give them food and shelter…..BUT…you also give them access to birth control, education, and healthcare.”

      Mother Teresa provided more than food and shelter. Are you this ignorant of her. Is this all just a bigoted ignorant rant from you? The congregation she started started with 13 members, when she died had more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centres worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine. It was that healthcare to help them live better, or the terminal to die with dignity. Something the non-Christian society had failed to provide.

      “I hardly Missed your point when I directly denied it.” No you ignored it. Clearly. Or you still don’t understand it. One person can only do so much. She did actually a very large amount for the poor. Education and healthcare? She raised money and awareness as well as institutions to help the poor. Did she change the doctrine of the Church? Really? The people she was tending WEREN’T Catholic, it’s doctrine had NO impact on their suffering you twat. INDIA man, INDIA.

      “Thats why the education and healthcare UNAVOIDABLY comes before they can’t feed themselves.”

      When you have no food, do you A) find someone to teach you to fish or B) get some food to eat? Which activity do you do first? Which is most vital to life, food, healthcare, or education? Actually in that order, with 2 and 3 being more or less a tie. Hard to learn when you are sick so quicker recovery means more education and health and food alone don’t elevate so education. But food first and foremost. And guess what . . . she did all three you twat.

      Did the poor she helped, that you think she oppressed with her docturine, become poor because Catholics a world away didn’t accept your dogma of family planning? They were mostly Hindu, like Gandhi. They weren’t Catholic. The Catholic church and Mother Teresa’s belief in reproduction wouldn’t have prevented their poverty.

      “people suffering brought them closer to God was disgusting”

      Struggles do make you stronger. I think that is what she meant. She would know as she gave up everything and begged for food and medical supplies before she was able to start a congregation. She started with nothing but the desire to help the poor, starting out poor herself.

      Silver linings to bad situations is disgusting? Spoken like a true spurned cynic. Like a hermit that has rejected society. Or they make you a crabby old husk of a cynic living in a trailer, becoming a hermit, criticizing anyone that isn’t as bitter as they are. Pathetic really.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5357 access attempts in the last 7 days.