Seeing as this world has too many human animals.. should some faiths stop encouraging big families?

Question

Seems a bit stupid to have a religion helping to destroy the earth by overpopulating it..... just so that religion can have the biggest 'flock' !

I reckon the God, if he/she/it ever existed, would be a bit peeved with this selfish attitude and would embrace those people who actually thought about all the animals and the survival of future generations.

Aah, how reassuring.............. the first two answers depict true selfishness!.
Nice to see that kind of people still exist. Not !!!!!!

Population is too big because we are relying on non-evolutionary tactics to be as we are. If you took all the drugs and food production methods away then the human animal will be at its quiescent state of population.

Answer 1

Birth control.

People think that sending food to foreign countries will increase their standard of living; they're wrong. All extra food does is encourage additional breeding, which encourages additional starvation on a mass scale. And "natural processes" are NOT pretty to watch, especially because the S-curve model of population does not go down--instead, you reach a certain miserable peak population and stay there.

You see so many charities wanting your food donations to send aid to foreign countries. Do you ever see charities wanting to send condoms? Contraceptives?

In addition, mismanagement of the environment can significantly deteriorate the supportable human population. And a lot of that currently happens.


Be careful not to underestimate China. They've managed to do the unthinkable--change what was once one of the world's highest birth rates into a population growth rate on a par with many Western nations (which aren't that high). Yet still, they have the world's largest population. Without such controls, China would face a major overcrowding problem, along with all of the ensuing problems of overcrowding--disease, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, crime, discontent.

There are problems, such as the disproportionate male/female rate; however, this is largely due to cultural factors. These same cultural factors are the ones that also encourage families of twelve. The first barrier to effective population control is culture. Once this barrier is leapt, contraception becomes much more viable.

Unless you want to wind up paying welfare for 22 billion starving people, don't be so quick to blow off population control.

Answer 2

Despite my religion, I think that a couple should have the amount of kids that they plan on affording college careers for. This means that if you calculate that you can only afford 2 kids, then so be it, but don't have more than that. I think that setting aside money enough to pay for a college career (I mean a good school not just a community college) for each of your kids should be the guideline to dictating how many kids should be part of the family. I say this to be a good guideline because parents should look after their kids and want the best not just have them because they are "accidents". Let's be realistic, calling your kids "accidents" is a lame excuse for accepting that you or your partner are not responsible adults, so what makes you think that the kids will be too? I know that amongst couples' kids, not all decide to go to college, but the claim that they (the kids) didn't have the opportunity to go to college, can not be made.

Religions shouldn't dictate or prohibit how a couple chooses to live their relationship. I think that it's the couple's decision how to run themselves (i.e. in a marriage). If a couple were to have 10 kids and couldn't feed them would the church come and adopt the disadvantaged kids? --Probably not! Nowadays, I think that societal behavior has changed and due to this the conservative religions should modernize their teachings or at least adapt themselves upto date.

I'm sure God wouldn't like couples to have kid after kid and not be able to afford them, as it happens in 3rd world countries. In those disadvantaged countries, as those of the 3rd world, people should be educated about contraception and be taught that this is not against God. I say this because "making love" in terms of loving another person is not against God. God is love...and that's what we should instill in others!

Answer 3

To be environmentally fully sustainable, we need a 90-95% cut in population numbers. That would return us to population figures of the mid Roman Empire period (more or less).
Religion, however, couldn't accept that. Fewer worshippers, less money in the collection plate, fewer soldiers for "God number 99".
In the one religion that insists on massive procreation (RCs) it's noticeable that the most orthodox countries are the poorest and most backward on the planet. Ideal god fodder. The thick can be told anything and they'll believe it. As education levels (and therefore understanding) rise, populations tend to drop and the rate of increase declines sharply.
If we fail to address this (the root cause of ALL environmental problems) we'll head towards extinction. Possibly no bad thing considering the mess we've made of the planet.

Answer 4

I believe that most religions are against abortion but also against birth control, too. Abortion should be empohatically out of the question, but what is wrong with using birth control devices or medication?

I agree that we are way too overpopulated, but we are the only species that has the ability to control it, but chooses not to.
Other animals control their populations when food, shelter, water and ranges begin to scarce, why shouldn't we?

There are already WAY too many starving people in the world, without home or jobs - when are we to learn? When there are no resources left for anything to survive, we will all meet our Maker.
What, pray, then?

Answer 5

It's a tough question to answer. On the one hand, some faiths have encouraged larger families, but I'm not sure it's religion's place. I think education might help--you know, enlighten people about the facts of overpopulation, and the benefits of smaller families on the parents as well as society in general.

Answer 6

If you are referring to Catholicism, then you are wrong to say that they encourage big families. The Catholic church opposes artificial contraception which creates an anti-life mentality i.e. sex can become pure recreation without consequences. Catholicism does permit natural contraception method and, of course, abstinence.
All faiths should encourage a more responsible view of the exploitation of natural resources. The teachings of Aquinas and St Francis of Assissi are eloquent testimony to Christianity's stated respect for the natural world.Unfortunately as long as so called developed nations continue to screw the lifeblood out of the globe's resources, poor nations will rely on large families as a means of survival. We need fairer agricultural production methods and genuine, empowering foreign aid policies - NOT OIL FOR FOOD!

Answer 7

Any species multiplying in great numbers and becoming a threat to its environment, is soon noticed by Nature.

Nature then uses its tools, to check that species from over-populating earth and disturbing the life cycle of other living beings.

Nature's remedies may look like delayed, but they are sure to work !!

Answer 8

what religions are you talking about?
I think your right but you shouldnt approach it from a religious angle. a more practicle approach will yeild better results.
i am from south africa. I think one of the biggest problems is that people are having children when they know that they cannot support them. too many orphans and abandoned kids over here. its just sad. People need to realise that irresponsible family planning has a dominoe effect and doesnt only affect one family when it happens so often.

Answer 9

Faiths should encourage responsible parenting, as should everybody. I don't think there can ever be too many good people in the world. If everybody is considerate to everyone else, then over population wouldn't be such a problem.

Answer 10

"would not that style of suck to be, say, a chimp, a dolphin, or a magpie (all demonstrably self-conscious animals)? I propose, you're attentive to your own existence; you spot your self as an entity that exists in this international; and you may see your self as a separate piece of reality. and then, POOF, you're executed. apparently, God would not provide a rat's a*s approximately you persevering with your judgment of right and incorrect." No, because of the fact i would not know a god that would not care approximately me. you won't be in a position to omit something you by no skill knew grow to be achievable.