The Incarnation
Member
jaxword said:
The Vatican has nothing to do with it.
For many various reasons poor people have more children. Even boredom plays a bigger role than the Vatican.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
World population to surpass 7 billion in 2011
- Thread starter Averon
- Start date
- Status
The Vatican has nothing to do with it.
For many various reasons poor people have more children. Even boredom plays a bigger role than the Vatican.
The Incarnation said:
The Vatican has everything to do with it.
People have sex. This is INEVITABLE.
Condoms allow people to have sex and not have offspring every single time.
The Vatican is PROUD to loudly denounce condoms and actively sends out religious leaders to educate people against using them.
Brainwashing people not to use condoms is an absolutely immoral, dishonest and, yes, evil act.
FlyingTeacup
Member
jaxword said:
the very reason why the main increase is in africa. religion.
Everyone agrees that condom usage and sexual education would slow the problem of overpopulation.
STOPPING the use of condoms WILL NOT HELP overpopulation.
Abstinence is so horrendously naive a concept that it's not worth debating, as the majority of the human species is not capable of this. Though I wonder...
Jokes aside, though, I stand by what I said. Let's look at a decade of misinformation about condoms:
2003:
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
2005:
Pope Rejects Condoms As a Counter to AIDS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29404-2005Jan22.html
2009:
Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
Then, in 2010:
"Benedict said that for male prostitutes - for whom contraception isn't a central issue - condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/20/world/main7073896.shtml
Which is completely irrelevent to the overpopulation debate, because that's for male prostitutes.
And then, in 2011:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html
At a weekend HIV/AIDS conference at the Vatican, the Catholic Church stood firm on its stance against the use of condoms to protect against the transmission of HIV.
In other words, the Vatican has been GLOBALLY pushing people to not use condoms, and only recently has there been dissent, but they still persist in their obsessive attempt to stop condom use.
This is wrong.
So I stand by what I said. The Vatican, in its obsession with blocking the safest form of contraception, is guilty of their part of overpopulation.
STOPPING the use of condoms WILL NOT HELP overpopulation.
Abstinence is so horrendously naive a concept that it's not worth debating, as the majority of the human species is not capable of this. Though I wonder...
Jokes aside, though, I stand by what I said. Let's look at a decade of misinformation about condoms:
2003:
Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids
2005:
Pope Rejects Condoms As a Counter to AIDS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29404-2005Jan22.html
2009:
Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
Then, in 2010:
"Benedict said that for male prostitutes - for whom contraception isn't a central issue - condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they could be justified "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/20/world/main7073896.shtml
Which is completely irrelevent to the overpopulation debate, because that's for male prostitutes.
And then, in 2011:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/vatican_05-30.html
At a weekend HIV/AIDS conference at the Vatican, the Catholic Church stood firm on its stance against the use of condoms to protect against the transmission of HIV.
In other words, the Vatican has been GLOBALLY pushing people to not use condoms, and only recently has there been dissent, but they still persist in their obsessive attempt to stop condom use.
This is wrong.
So I stand by what I said. The Vatican, in its obsession with blocking the safest form of contraception, is guilty of their part of overpopulation.
The Incarnation
Member
jaxword said:
Most of Africa is Muslim by the way, a good 60%.
How many Africans have you've met that say that they're a proud Catholic?
Christian yes, Anglican probably.
The Vatican has next to zero influence in Africa.
You neglect to think about the population rises in Indonesia, India, China, and Pakistan, which alone counts for a third of the world's population. The level of poverty there isn't too far off Africa's you know. In some places in India, it's even worse. Why do you think the west still sends Aid to these nations even today?
I guess the Vatican is to blame for that as well right?
By your logic the world population should of hit 7 billion in 1379, because *gasp* people didn't use condoms back then either.
The world's population has increased in direct proportion to the level of poverty.
To be frank, the population rise in Africa is quite slow outside of Nigeria, there's still less than 1 BILLION people on the whole CONTINENT.
Compare that to Asia's FOUR BILLION.
show me your skeleton
Member
someone must really care about their high-score for them to not have enabled cheat mode ala civilisation 2 by now.
The Incarnation said:
This single statement completely demonstrates how you have no idea what you're talking about. Not only is it a fallacious comparison, it really smacks of ignorance since there were MANY factors that kept the world's population from skyrocketing, not the least of which is modern medicine prolonging life and increasing successful childbirth.
The rest of your post goes off on irrelevant tangents of other countries: they do not have the same population growth rates.
You are deliberately ignoring the point I reiterate and stand by: Encouraging people to not use condoms is wrong and contributes to the problem.
If you refuse to believe that, then there really is no hope for humans learning population control if this simple fact can't be accepted.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The Incarnation said:
Africa has the highest population growth rate in the world, on average, as you can see here. The graph is for percentages (3 = 3% annual). And the pope telling people not to use contraceptives (because contraceptives being immoral is an official doctrine of the church) is deplorable, regardless of how much influence you believe he has.
The Incarnation
Member
FlyingTeacup said:
But the main population increase isn't on the African continent at all.
And again Religion has nothing to do with it.
Asia accounts for over 60% of the world population with more than 4 billion people. China and India together have about 37 percent of the world's population. Africa follows with 1 billion people, 15% of the world's population. Europe's 733 million people make up 11% of the world's population. Latin America and the Caribbean region is home to 589 million (9%), Northern America is to 352 million (5%) and Oceania to 35 million (0.5 %).[6]
Now considering that AFRICA is the SECOND largest continent. And looking at Europe's population you'd see that it's not that big of a difference.
But yah, it's ALL Africa's fault for the world population increase, even though the population there is a mere 4% higher than Europe's, which incidentally happens to be much smaller than the whole of Africa.
I might care to add that Africa is resource rich, compared to places like Europe and China.
So asking them to reduce their population while the rest of the world plunders their wealth, and pollutes their land, in places of loans and further debt, is a bit rich. Seriously.
The Incarnation said:
You are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
The Incarnation
Member
jaxword said:
In proportion to land mass.
Liberia population of gasp 3,786,764 has risen 3% in the last 4 years.
You would think China's population of let's say 2 Billion raising more than 2.5%, is a better deal.
The fact is China's population increase is 0.47% annually, which considering the population in China beats out Liberia's rise of 400,000 people over the past 4 years or so. Liberia is not exactly a stable nation either so the rise was needed because of the amount of people killed war there.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The Incarnation said:
They can't feed themselves with what little population they have, how does having large landmasses unsuitable to farming (because they are either dense jungle/rainforest or deserts, neither of which can be farmed) make any difference here? Australia wouldn't be able to support a population of 500 million, despite being almost as large as China, because so much of it is unusable.
A starving country growing at 3% annually is a disaster. Since growth rates compound, maintaining a 2%+ growth rate for 25 years will see Africa's contribution to the world population skyrocket, because the rest of the world is more like 1% (even most of Asia), and in some cases (Russia, Eastern Europe) is experiencing negative population growth (more deaths than births).
Chinas population is more like 1 billion, and is growing at less than 1%, because the government has been running the One Child Policy for more than two decades. More importantly, the rate of growth is plummeting, and is unlikely to ever exceed 1.5 billion or so. It's a forward thinking country, and recognizes that overpopulation is not a good thing. Africa has to keep it's population growth in check. The whole world has to, but the rest of the world basically already is.
The Incarnation said:
Backtracking is a very dishonest debate technique.
And your China example is also incorrect.
The Chinese government is GLOBALLY known for its incredibly totalitarian controls over the population's births. And given the ratio of males vs females, it's safe to say China will be facing its own population crisis as viable mates vanish. Japan already is facing this.
The Incarnation
Member
jaxword said:
You need to grasp what this % means.
End of conversation.
May as well talk to ants.
The Incarnation said:
ThoseDeafMutes has already explained why your percentage example is erroneous. And I have explained why, culturally, your examples of asian countries are also incorrect.
Leaving with a parting insult doesn't really give your stance any credibility. I've provided sources for what I've said, and I stand by them regardless of insult. Can you claim the same?
The Incarnation
Member
jaxword said:
Like I said if you can't grasp % there's no point in continuing this discussion, regardless of whatever you perceive to be an insult or otherwise.
60% of the world population having a rise in population of let's say 3%.
Is much bigger than 15% of the world's population having a rise of 10%.
For some reason you refuse to see this. One brings a bigger number of people.
And thus you think the poorer should breed less, whereas at the beginning said I children give a poor person extra worth, and thus wealth..
You choose to ignore what you want, and see what you want.
Who wants to seem credible to someone who thinks like that?
I'd rather been seen as an idiot to be blunt to such people..
FlyingTeacup
Member
The Incarnation said:
the question here is why is the rate of population increase in the rest of world slowing down or negative while africa still has a pretty robust upward rate.
The Incarnation
Member
FlyingTeacup said:
For exactly the same reasons why the population increased in Europe after the plague, and after the World Wars, etc, etc.
As you can see Africa is a Continent that is not exactly stable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Look there, what do the top nations have in common? Afghanistan has the third fastest growth rate for example. The Palestinian territories being another example. They're nations where a lot of people get killed put it that way.
FlyingTeacup
Member
The Incarnation said:
now you just contradict yourself, first: rapid population increase post war etc, 2nd: rapid population increase during war etc???????
The Incarnation
Member
FlyingTeacup said:
No I don't at all..
Look to your own intent as to why that isn't the case.
Is not exactly stable, i.e it goes through periods of war, famine, etc, etc, and yes it has it's moments of peace and stability also. Somalia is high up on that list as well, That's going through a period of War and Famine right now, once all that stops, the population increase will speed up further.
I said what I said. NOT EXACTLY STABLE. Not what you think I meant.
But at the end of the day if you're just looking to have a bitchy argument get lost, and grow up.
Angry Fork
Member
I still don't know why we don't require a license/evaluation to have children. It should be illegal to have one without a license and be enforced with at least a 10k fine and 3-6 months community service. As for people in 3rd world countries having kids, as depressing as it is because they lack the food to survive they'll just die out. Has anybody in politics tried to bring this up as a real suggestion yet? The license thing.
FlyingTeacup
Member
The Incarnation said:
wha....
look at the mirror, mate.
do people still believe that the vatican has such influence in Africa. the reasons for low condom use is the same as anywhere else, don't like the feel etc etc. People seem to forget why poor countries tend to have high birth rates. Children tend to die young, and a lot of families need children to work and to provide for the family as the parents the older and have no pension etc.
Yes the message that condoms are wrong is stupid in this day and age, but most poeple ignore it completely
Yes the message that condoms are wrong is stupid in this day and age, but most poeple ignore it completely
Killamangiro
Member
Apparently if we all lived as densely as New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in Texas. #noshit
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/
Mr. B Natural
Member
Of course stupid religions are a barrier for population control on this planet but so is pointless pride for having as many kids as you can't afford. Did that pride derive from religious pride? Maybe, but now I see it more as family pride and a simple effort to keep that cultural bubble from popping...and most importantly ignorance. Case in point that thread we had a few months back about the Latino population in America going up 40% in 10 years. 40% in 10 years?! You'd think that would be berated hard by atheist gaf, but nope, "good for them" was the general consensus. Dumb. Straight up dumb.
A person is a person. Too many people are too many people. Doesn't matter if you're talking India, China, Texas or Africa. It's all one big planet. Keep your stupid pride in your pants. Yes, your wife can have 10 kids. So what if you can only afford 1 and have the time for 2 or 3?
A person is a person. Too many people are too many people. Doesn't matter if you're talking India, China, Texas or Africa. It's all one big planet. Keep your stupid pride in your pants. Yes, your wife can have 10 kids. So what if you can only afford 1 and have the time for 2 or 3?
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Is Catholicism widespread in Africa?jaxword said:
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Killamangiro said:
It would be Montana if everyone lived as densely as in Macau.
BruiserBear
Banned
There's a whole lot of smanging going on.
Human acheivement should be viewed as a giant pyramid. We can only acheive the greatest heights by continually expanding the base.
I guess it's a chicken/egg argument. What came first, explosive prosperity and technological growth or explosive population growth? Can you have one without the other?
I guess it's a chicken/egg argument. What came first, explosive prosperity and technological growth or explosive population growth? Can you have one without the other?
FlyingTeacup
Member
ToxicAdam said:
chicken 1st. Chicken egg cannot form without a chicken ovary.
Fernando Rocker
Banned
The planet Earth is very big... very very big.
7 billion people can easily live on Earth... thing is, there is a problem of distribution.
Honest question: Does anyone knows how much territory would we cover if all the cities in the world were next to each other?
Every city would fit perfectly on a country of the size of USA... heck, even less... most of the Earth is pure nature.
7 billion people can easily live on Earth... thing is, there is a problem of distribution.
Honest question: Does anyone knows how much territory would we cover if all the cities in the world were next to each other?
Every city would fit perfectly on a country of the size of USA... heck, even less... most of the Earth is pure nature.
The Incarnation said:
No and no. Most of Africa isn't Muslim, it's more like half Muslim and half Christian.
"It was estimated in 2002 that Christians form 40% of Africa's population, with Muslims forming 45%."
The Christian population is the one growing larger with the high birth rates among mostly Catholic areas like Uganda where the Vatican/Western Catholic groups have alot of influence. If you look at the map I posted before, where it shows the fertility rates in countries, you'll see that the highest ones are the sub-saharan countries with the large Christian populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Africa
RustyNails
Member
More or less open to debate.The Incarnation said:
Majority of the Muslim population lives in North Africa: Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc. If you checked the earlier map from wikipedia, the real problems in Africa are found in sub-saharan region, which is dominated by Christianity and hence, missionaries. Arguably Somalia and Sudan also fall into "problematic" category.
Something Wicked
Member
You idiots, the predictions of global population growth are actually quite logarithmic for the upcoming decades- particularly after 2050. Talk about lowering the global IQ... many of you need to retake basic algebra.
MaddenNFL64
Member
Man, if the 20th wasn't so fucking brutal early on, maybe be well past 7 billion by now.
I doubt we'll have anything like WW1, or WW2 come along, not to mention flu epidemics just dont happen anymore, not any that kill 50 to 100 million people anyway.
I doubt we'll have anything like WW1, or WW2 come along, not to mention flu epidemics just dont happen anymore, not any that kill 50 to 100 million people anyway.
FlyingTeacup
Member
ToxicAdam said:
eh no.
my reply was my attempt at answering your chicken or egg 1st.
Personally, I would say no. To increase prosperity, spending per capita has to increase for education, health care, infrastructure and most importantly, social and justice system. to do so, population needs to be kept at steady rate.
theignoramus
Member
No, first worlders need to stop fucking consuming so many resources and pumping out so much pollution.I NEED SCISSORS said:
theignoramus
Member
why the fuck is Africa singled out? The Indian subcontinent has almost as many people as every country in Africa (with no high intensity warfare are famines killing off the population either)
theignoramus
Member
and what resources are they consuming, as compared to others across the globe? How much pollution and waste are they pumping out? That's a statistic that matters too. This isnt a one way street.Orayn said:
milanbaros
Member?
I hope I'm alive too see the results of the world demographic transition and see all these population doomsayers start talking about there being too few young people to work. I will laugh and tell them when I was young...
Half the world has below replacement fertility and much of the rest is going the same way.
It would be funny if the end of the human species came about not from armegeddon but we just didn't want to carry it on and it slowly died out.
Half the world has below replacement fertility and much of the rest is going the same way.
It would be funny if the end of the human species came about not from armegeddon but we just didn't want to carry it on and it slowly died out.
- Status