Comments on: Population, religion and homo extinctus http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/population-religion-and-homo-extinctus/ Humanist perspectives on the here and now Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:47:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Edwin Salter http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/population-religion-and-homo-extinctus/comment-page-1/#comment-547 Edwin Salter Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:49:08 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1170#comment-547 This is largely true I think (v. Freethinker Jan. 09) but perhaps too pessimistic to be useful. Yes many self-righteous causes - family, race, nation, faith - contribute to the population explosion (the religious pressures of Rome and the USA included) and there are repulsive examples of women regarded as baby machines. But uncompensated medicine has thoughtlessly converted natural sexuality into a crisis by neglecting to enable and promote birth control. The irreligious should be proud of Bradlaugh and Besant for their pioneering Malthusian efforts. Most Western children will make big carbon footprints, but the unwanted, untaught children of the poor can be exploited by all. Population - and the dubious 'right' of multiplication - are finally becoming salient issues. Well-being and happiness should be linked with small families, both in health programmes and through education and the media (e.g. TV soaps). Individuals (the work of psychologist Bandura for example) and groups (such as the Optimal Population Trust) can be effective. Even longevity in the developed world is beginning to find some balance in the concern with quality of life and possibility of assistance in suicide. The world would indeed be amply filled by one-tenth of us enjoying fulfilled and constructive lives. The near unavoidable extra billion over the next decade or so truly constitutes a crisis both for resources and the climate problem. It is not easy to regulate and rebalance population but there are examples (Kerala, Singapore, China) from the persuasive to the harsh. Alarm, but not panic, is perhaps the recipe for hope. This is largely true I think (v. Freethinker Jan. 09) but perhaps too pessimistic to be useful. Yes many self-righteous causes – family, race, nation, faith – contribute to the population explosion (the religious pressures of Rome and the USA included) and there are repulsive examples of women regarded as baby machines. But uncompensated medicine has thoughtlessly converted natural sexuality into a crisis by neglecting to enable and promote birth control. The irreligious should be proud of Bradlaugh and Besant for their pioneering Malthusian efforts. Most Western children will make big carbon footprints, but the unwanted, untaught children of the poor can be exploited by all.
Population – and the dubious ‘right’ of multiplication – are finally becoming salient issues. Well-being and happiness should be linked with small families, both in health programmes and through education and the media (e.g. TV soaps). Individuals (the work of psychologist Bandura for example) and groups (such as the Optimal Population Trust) can be effective. Even longevity in the developed world is beginning to find some balance in the concern with quality of life and possibility of assistance in suicide.
The world would indeed be amply filled by one-tenth of us enjoying fulfilled and constructive lives. The near unavoidable extra billion over the next decade or so truly constitutes a crisis both for resources and the climate problem. It is not easy to regulate and rebalance population but there are examples (Kerala, Singapore, China) from the persuasive to the harsh. Alarm, but not panic, is perhaps the recipe for hope.

]]> By: Chris Shaw http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/population-religion-and-homo-extinctus/comment-page-1/#comment-426 Chris Shaw Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:16:39 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1170#comment-426 May I suggest that George Gellis is being a tad disingenuous. Surely, Sir Roy Calne is not suggesting that we can do anything to prevent the extinction of the human race, but that it has now become inevitable. Personally, I'm a little more hopeful that a sufficient number of humans will survive to evolve into beings that might live in a bit more harmony with the planet and each other. May I suggest that George Gellis is being a tad disingenuous. Surely, Sir Roy Calne is not suggesting that we can do anything to prevent the extinction of the human race, but that it has now become inevitable. Personally, I’m a little more hopeful that a sufficient number of humans will survive to evolve into beings that might live in a bit more harmony with the planet and each other.

]]> By: Joe Bauwens http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/population-religion-and-homo-extinctus/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Joe Bauwens Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:14:04 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1170#comment-307 Sure, lots of Catholics ignore the pope's line on contraception, but that's not thew whole story. Religious groups often don't stick to banning contraception, they try to ban knowledge of contraception. Under George Bush all American aid had strict regulations on what family planning procedures could even be discused by recipients, and other religious groups continue to try to disrupt family planning schemes in both the developed and developing world, as well as trying to gain as much control over education systems as possible - and when a religious organisation has taken control of a school it may not only try to avoid discussing family planning, it is quite likely that discussion of environmental concerns connected to overpopulation and excess consumption will go out the window too... Sure, lots of Catholics ignore the pope’s line on contraception, but that’s not thew whole story. Religious groups often don’t stick to banning contraception, they try to ban knowledge of contraception. Under George Bush all American aid had strict regulations on what family planning procedures could even be discused by recipients, and other religious groups continue to try to disrupt family planning schemes in both the developed and developing world, as well as trying to gain as much control over education systems as possible – and when a religious organisation has taken control of a school it may not only try to avoid discussing family planning, it is quite likely that discussion of environmental concerns connected to overpopulation and excess consumption will go out the window too…

]]> By: George Jelliss http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/population-religion-and-homo-extinctus/comment-page-1/#comment-298 George Jelliss Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:52:26 +0000 http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/?p=1170#comment-298 Since Sir Roy Calne is a medical man I had hoped he would throw some light on the population problem, but he only seems to have obfuscated it. To what extent is the population increase down to 1) the natural process, 2) the religious instruction to go out and multiply and not to use control methods, 3) the advances in medicine that allow people to survive and produce offspring, 4) the advances in fertility treatments that allow women to have children who would previously have been unable to? 5) political measures such as the chinese one-baby per family policy? Can such factors be quantified? There are probably others of significant importance. As to what policies should be followed, 4) is probably a very minor factor but might increase in future, and most humanists would I think want the research 3) to continue regardless. I'm doubtful about the actual impact of 2) since many catholics for instance ignore the pope's instructions, and failure to use birth control measures can result in more deaths (e.g. from AIDS) as well as more births. I think the statistics show that greater prosperity and education, particularly of women, reduces the population growth, but this is a slow process and may not reach a plateau before the polpulation is well beyond optimal. Are their other measures that can be taken that are not oppressive. Since Sir Roy Calne is a medical man I had hoped he would throw some light on the population problem, but he only seems to have obfuscated it. To what extent is the population increase down to 1) the natural process, 2) the religious instruction to go out and multiply and not to use control methods, 3) the advances in medicine that allow people to survive and produce offspring, 4) the advances in fertility treatments that allow women to have children who would previously have been unable to? 5) political measures such as the chinese one-baby per family policy? Can such factors be quantified? There are probably others of significant importance.

As to what policies should be followed, 4) is probably a very minor factor but might increase in future, and most humanists would I think want the research 3) to continue regardless. I’m doubtful about the actual impact of 2) since many catholics for instance ignore the pope’s instructions, and failure to use birth control measures can result in more deaths (e.g. from AIDS) as well as more births. I think the statistics show that greater prosperity and education, particularly of women, reduces the population growth, but this is a slow process and may not reach a plateau before the polpulation is well beyond optimal.

Are their other measures that can be taken that are not oppressive.

]]>