Why is this forum arguing about the influence of Judaic religions on population growth?
If the population growth of the earth is going to be impacted it won't be by coaxing popular religions like Catholicism and Christianity to be less"fruitful". Despite the predominance of these religions in countries like the U.S. and Britain, the growth rate in these countries are decreasing and have been steadily for years. Why? Because women in these countries have access to education, healthcare, and birth control. More importantly, women in these countries are empowered to make their own decisions and aren't treated like property. On the other hand, the countries with the highest population growth rates such as Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, W. Sahara, E. Timer, Niger, Eritrea, Uganda, DR Congo, and the Palestinian Territories, etc have what sort of women's rights? What do you know, these are the countries where women lack education, are still traded under a dowry system, and have the vast majority of there personal freedoms removed. Some of these countries even put female rape victims to death via stoning - and it's practically 2012! If the human population growth curve is going to be impacted it will be by empowering women in the countries they are treated the worst to have the basic dignity and freedom to make their own healthcare choices, not by convincing a few fundamentalists in developed nations to have less children. Take a look at all the countries with growth rates higher than 2% and then look at how women are treated in that nation. The problem, and solution is clear, and I'm constantly dismayed that it is consistently ignored in population growth conversations like the one on this forum. On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Nathan Brouwer <[email protected]> wrote: > As pointed out, many conservative Christians believe the mandate in > Genesis to "be fruitful and increase in number" is a directive to produce > as many children as possible. Whenever I have heard this argument put > forward, there is usually a science-sounding adjunct like, "and you know, > the whole population of the earth could fit into the state of Texas, each > with a ranch house and a back yard." The logic seems to be that as long as > there is space to fit people we should keep populating the earth. (This > logic was recently put forward by the father on the popular TV show 19 Kids > and Counting. I have also heard this from the influential — and > controversial -- pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle). > > It seems this odd argument of fitting the word's population into Texas or > wherever adds a science-like justification to their faith-based values. > While its frustrating that this erroneous thinking is invoked I think it > indicates some level of appreciation for science, facts, math, even > modeling. A potential response could invoke the ecological footprint > concept and point out how much land it would take to feed a population of 7 > billion living in suburban ranch houses. >
