Populate or Perish

T

TonyG

Likes Dirt
I used to find the religous topics on here quite interesting and insightful, but for a fair while now they have just become condecending diatribes of people trying to force their opinion on others. I hope this doesn't go the same way.
Back on topic
I think it is a disgrace that a person of influence can make a comment so controversial as this. I cant see how he can think we are going to perish just because our population growth in Western countries is not as high as that in others??

Thoughts ?? (and try and keep the church bashing to minimum)





http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...s-cardinal-pell/2008/07/14/1215887540778.html
 
Moggio

Moggio

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Ok take the church bashing as a given....

This is insane. It reminds me of Peter Costello wanting to increase the population because it fitted the figures well in his economic model... too bad it didn't reflect reality and actual resources.

Doesn't Pell's comment strike you as somewhat racist, (or at least religiousist) as well... that the only way the west will survive is if we swamp all the non western nations by our population numbers... somehow our western societies are supposed to remain superior despite what these huge numbers of people will do to our social structure.

Really it just supports the Catholic church dogma of no contraception and over the next few days we are lickely to hear and see a lot more ignorant crazziness.

... add some more generic church bashing in as a given...
 
nizai

nizai

Likes Dirt
Its a bit of an odd comment considering, like the article mentions, a high population level is at odd's with the idea of resource allocations and environmental impact.

Pel is clearly a man with no time at all for science, and im not just talking lab work here, he's got it in for the math demographic nerds too.

"Ruthless commercial forces are telling young people that this is the way forward, this is the modern way"
Click to expand...
Yeah and? So I should procreate despite my inability to adequately feed my child. So I should make the innocent suffer because Pel pays no heed to pesky "commercial forces".

N
 
B

brisneyland

Likes Dirt
Look it's hard not to indulge in church bashing when we're presented with such antiquated, ignorant and frankly stupid ideas.

The Catholic church has been running around Africa telling people not to use condoms for f*cks sake! Jesus isn't going to protect anyone from HIV now is he?
 
PINT of Stella. mate!

PINT of Stella. mate!

Many, many Scotches
Or to put it another way...

"Australian Catholics, get rooting now! We need to boost the numbers and we're not doing too well in getting existing adults to convert..."

:rolleyes:
 
Customjimmy

Customjimmy

Likes Dirt
It's just the old John Howard trick of taking attention away from negative issues through a more attention-grabbing media sound bite. Has everybody forgotten about him covering up for that rockspider already?

As far as his comments go, that is trans-denominational stupidity, and he should be bashed (figuratively) as an individual. The church has 2000 years of stupidity, immorality and baseless fiction to answer for already, this latest comment by Pell is neither here nor there. (sorry TonyG:)).
 
DeBloot

DeBloot

Feeling old
What POSM and CJ said
I like his very populist 'we need to protect the world against the ravages of climate change'
while over populating.

And now that my blood is boiling at more religious hypocracy
Since when is a t-shirt proclaiming 'abortion is murder' not deemed 'offensive'.
Or is it only 'slogans deemed offensive to the church'
 
Last edited:
Oddjob

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
As an economist who works on natural resource management issues, I think that Malthus was right, he was just a few centuries out. It is entirely inappropriate for the earth to be supporting 6 billion people currently let alone the 9 billion that is forecast for 2050.

If we don't swelter to death, we'll either run out of water or food and I can gaurentee that it won't be the West that will have to do the blood letting. I can even see a future where wars a fought over water.
 
DeBloot

DeBloot

Feeling old
I can even see a future where wars a fought over water.

Even more important than food for survival.
Water will be the new oil in generations to come.
Increasingly survival of the fittest where the poor are the first to feel it.
Thank God for the afterlife.
 
scblack

scblack

Leucocholic
All you need is a desalination plant, some pipes and energy.

So wars over water, I think not so likely.:cool:
 
LJohn

LJohn

Likes Dirt
All he wants is catholics to breed more catholics because the birth rate of muslim countries essentially caused them to become the biggest religion (and probably more sane, excluding extremists).

And water doesn't deplete. No matter what, we will find a way to convert seawater (already mentioned), somehow use trees with tap roots to access the water table (bad idea, but still, if the rise causes salinity in farmlands, I'm sure someone will find a way to drop it and use the water). A big issue is getting water to farmers. They are one of the most vital parts of the economy, Australia needs them.

On another populate or perish note, does anyone else think curing aids in Africa would be a bad idea? Not bad, necessarily, but bringing more dire consequences?
 
A

Arete

Likes Dirt
scblack said:
All you need is a desalination plant, some pipes and energy.

So wars over water, I think not so likely.:cool:
Click to expand...
Things that aren't especially easy to come by in Sub-Saharan Africa... Australia is unlikely to bear the brunt of food and water shortages - even if food increased a order of magnitude in price, we'd all still be able to eat. Not so for the 1 billion people earning less than a dollar a day.

And even the current Aussie desal plans (at least down here in SA) are looking to be pretty much disastrous for the marine environment, desal is energy hungry, and we're still growing rice in the MD Basin - more efficient use and generally stopping agricultural practices that are monumentally crap ideas will probably have a more significant long term impact.

Back OT- Typical, ultra right wing tripe completely out of touch with reality... did you expect anything less from Pell or the Catholic Church in general?

For a representative of an organisation that is responsible for institutionalised paedophilia, mass murder, encouraging epidemic disease, persecuting science and medicine and a host of other atrocities against mankind to be still claiming the moral high ground is hypocrisy at it's finest.
 
axertes

axertes

Likes Dirt
LJohn said:
On another populate or perish note, does anyone else think curing aids in Africa would be a bad idea? Not bad, necessarily, but bringing more dire consequences?
Click to expand...
Ok, so tell me why people have lots of kids in less developed countries, compared to developed ones?

Infant and child mortality is higher so you have lots and lots as an insurance policy, and to guarantee that your family will continue. In developed countries our children living is almost guaranteed, so we have 1, 2 or 3.

So if you stop disease and decrease infant mortality rates, that may actually help control population because people will slow down having kids.

I dunno, I study IR and there's a similar theory to this that states that industrialised low birth rate countries are less likely to have wars because a single child carries more 'relative emotional capital' because we only have 1 to 3 of them, so we don't want them to go and get killed.
 
LJohn

LJohn

Likes Dirt
axertes said:
So if you stop disease and decrease infant mortality rates, that may actually help control population because people will slow down having kids.
Click to expand...
If that and AIDS eradication occurred simultaneously, that'd be perfect. That'd be up on #1 of wants for the world. I get the fact that is a possibility, but I can't see an instant transition. If it were eradicated, but the birth rate remained the same, the food supply and waterborne disease would still cause a huge number of deaths, which would be just as tragic. I was under the impression the high birth rate was partially due to economics. More children = more support for the family, so if the average income doesn't increase, I can't see the birth rate decreasing.

And to spike. I still want to see it cured, but only if death from other causes like starvation or disease didn't occur instead. Or anything for that matter. It'd be nice if the situation wasn't so bad.
 
b_S

b_S

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I think he should tell the church crew that sex with boys doesn't help procreation.
 
Lemontime

Lemontime

Eats Squid
"We need to rediscover our Earth in the face of our God and creator and to re-find our responsibilities in front of our maker and the creatures of the Earth he has placed in our hands in trust."
Click to expand...
Did that not make much sense to anybody else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top