Serious question for Christians/Catholics/Muslims - how do we curtail the birthrate without birth control?

Question

1 billion in 1804
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 ( 33 years later)
4 billion in 1974 ( 14 years later)
5 billion in 1987 ( 13 years later)
6 billion in 1999 ( 12 years later)

The most dire problem facing our planet today is exponential population growth. We are increasing our numbers approx 79,000,000 per year, the equivilent of a country the size of Germany.

Eventually we need birth control or the population will be limited by natural means; starvation, pandemic disease or warfare. To stop the growth we need to apply the brakes now, while there is still a chance. We have significantly reduced death rates for the last 2 centuries. Until we do the same to birth rates across the planet we remain doomed to experience increasing problems of overcrowding and resource depletion.

Since the aforementioned religions do not permit birth contol, what is the answer? (please, no silly suggestions like abstinence or the rhythm method, we need a serious solution.)

Let me clarify why abstinence and avoiding women when they're fertile are silly answers.....

BECAUSE THE SIX BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET PROVES THIS SOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE.

I'm not asking for a dreamers fantasy solution, I'm asking for a real-world, practical answer to the the most serious problem our planet faces.

And for those of you who give flippant answers like "GOD" will handle it, let me clarify something for you... the recent tsunami accounted for a GRAND TOTAL of 8 months worth of population growth. You'd have to have disasters that kill millions of people EVERY SINGLE DAY, to make a dent. IS THIS THE KIND OF WORLD YOU WANT TO LIVE IN??? I'd like to hear your smart-alec replies when it's your children that are starving to death.

Wow, people really don't READ questions thoroughly before answering.

Wars and disasters are trivial. When you combine all the wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, droughts and famines that have occurred in this century, they've killed less than half a billion people. At our current rate, we could replace every person who died in WWII in less than a year.

Short of an asteroid, a mega-volcano, or a REAL NASTY plague, we will eventually reach the point of "global saturation" and then the earth itself will solve the problem. You won't want to be around for that. The only solution is to put on the brakes ourselves, NOW. Like some have pointed out, a major revamping of our religious beliefs concerning reproduction is long overdue. It's simply foolish to think people will voluntarily curb their sex drives. People are weak. We need an authoritarian solution if we are to save our species.

I suggest a worldwide limit of 2 children max per family. No exceptions.

Answer 1

I guess saying 'just the cross they have to bear' is not funny.
It would take a fundamental change in the structure of the Church, and a different interpretation of the Scriptures. It would require allowing, indeed encouraging sex education, and contraception.

For the entire history of the Church, unrestricted reproduction (within marriage) has been sort of the Social Security System -not only of the Church, but of poor people worldwide. Since so many children died very young (and still do), the only way to insure a future has been to have enough children so that at least a few would be there to care for the elderly, and carry on the traditions of the Church.

Since the Scriptures of ALL religions were written by men, and since those men were products of their time, AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN, the rules pertaining to sex and reproduction made sense within their matrix. It is only, as you pointed out, relatively recently that reproduction has become a threat rather than a benefit.

Unfortunately, Christianity believes in the Apocalypse. Which means that those who bought into, er, rather, supported the faith believe that Christians will be redeemed. The end of life as we know it is seen as a blessing, rather than a curse. So the odds of them changing are slim.

Good question though.

Answer 2

WARNING: the following is vitriolic, and a lot of you won't like it.

I couldn't agree with you more; I've been hooting the same thing for years.

I have yet to understand why, when facing these numbers, and in realizing that gas, oil, water and real estate are scarcer and more costly every single year, the average person's response is to have a baby (!).

Neither I nor my sisters ever had any children; it seems so blinking obvious to us that the last thing that is needed is...more people! To accomplish this, we used birth control.

We used condoms, spermicidal foam, the pill and the IUD (kids, if you have to ask, you're undereducated).

None of this was condoned by the Catholic Church, or, as far as I can glean, Islam or certain Christian Fundamentalist sects.

There comes a time when you have to use your own common sense; yet, undereducated and primitive people tend to do things that are basic and easily comprehensible. Squeezing out pups... whoops! I mean, having Blessed Events!... is one of these.

It takes neither wit nor planning nor even your attention to carry a fetus to term; any dog can do it. This is the great appeal to primitive people: a birth represents the greatest amount of attention and approval for the least application of skill.

People with simplistic beliefs will only take responsible action when they have understanding and knowledge, a rare commodity among the Ultra Fundamentalists.

It would be nice if this could be accomplished, and birth control universally embraced, before nature prunes back the population FOR us.

End Screed; please return to your normal activities. Thank you.

Answer 3

It is interesting that you acknowledge that many major religions do not support birth control, and by that statement seem to be stating that physical barriers to becoming pregnant or eliminating pregnancy are not options, and then go on to say that abstinence is a silly suggestion. Abstinence outside of marriage is a viable solution, if we teach people that it is. If abstinence is silly, then why are the other birth control measures spoken of by you as viable but unusable options because of religious beliefs?

Because people keep saying that abstinence is not realistic, then young people believe that abstinence is not realistic. In speaking of birth rates, take out the number of births by unwed mothers and see what you come up with.

Answer 4

Several assumptions may NOT hold up. Malthus posited those potential outcomes in population quite a few years ago, and we haven't seen those particular Horsemen of Disaster show up yet. (But I'm really disinclined to hold my breath and count on the science whizzes to keep saving our behinds...)

It seems that, in the US at least, there are a heck of a lot of Roman Catholics who figure "the Pope is in Rome, and I'm on the Pill." It may very well be that many religious authorities are losing their influence in terms of regulating the potential fertility of their followers.
If memory also serves, increased education levels seem to historically be associated with fewer children in families as a whole, but don't have a cite (any volunteers?).

Answer 5

NFP
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/meadows/2879/

Answer 6

The solution lies in "survival of the fittest"... catastrophes like Sept. 11th or Hurricane Katrina or tsunamis that wipe out thousands of people at a time...
Who knows what's in store for the future? Who knows if a nuclear war should happen next year? No one is immune to a possible asteroid hitting the earth and another terrorist attack could happen at any minute. These disasters are a devastating when they do happen, but they are necessary to curtailing the overgrowth of our planet, regardless of who wants to believe it.

We as humans kill each other off... its a cycle. We fight over religion, we fight over land, we invent things like cars and planes that kill thousands annually.

Besides, nuclear war will wipe out half the world's population when it does happen.

Answer 7

There is no way that major religions will ever come to see this as a serious problem. A religion that does not do whatever it can to produce new adherents is a religion that dies out. Since we generally take on the beliefs of our parents, encouraging your "flock" to have as many kids as possible is a very effective way for a religious belief system to perpetuate itself. Belief systems that do not do so will find themselves overwhelmed by those that do.

This is a perfect example of a major moral issue that cannot be addressed through religion.

Answer 8

They just shouldnt have sex in the first place, that would be the best thing if birth control is kind of breaking a rule for the persons religion. Its actually quite frustrating that some people dont think before having a baby. Well ok whatever.

-Edward

Answer 9

The solution is to ignore the Religions that oppose Birth Control. Our free will and common sense can defeat these backward Religions. It can be done - just look at the number of Divorced Roman Catholics - where there is a will there is a way. God helps those who help themselves.

Answer 10

Population growth by itself is not a problem. Population growth in abrahamic-religion-majority countries is. These bozos rape the earth claiming that big G has "gifted" it to them to pillage. Their energy consumption is more than 1000 times that of developing countries. Thus every child born in such countries is as bad as 1000 children born in "heathen lands". Burn the bible, koran and torah; become a humanist. Be eco-conscious. Don't deny evolution and global-warming. Circumcision to be replaced by castration. Problem will be solved in a couple of generations.