Storm Rider Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 32 minutes ago, Thinking said: Yes, but then you continued... I interpreted the rest of your post as a refutation of that one sentence. And now for your other question... I should have been more specific with my question about finite resources as I was considering a grander scale. Population growth cannot continue exponentially because the planet does not have unlimited resources. If the human population approaches that threshold, what would your opinion be? Oh, the macro level. You know, Thinking, I remember a short story that I read in High School. As I recall, it was entitled, Flight. The gist of the story was that a boy never becomes a man until there is a need; something the forces the individual to choose to either grow into a man or run away and remain a boy for a longer period of time. I think invention follows in the same way. Until there is a need there is no invention to respond or solve the problem. Is there a point at which invention cannot respond to the needs of humanity? I think there could be, but we would never know it until we arrive at that point. I have recently skimmed some articles that discussed the ability to grow enough food on a very small land footprint by building vertically to feed the entire planet. I would expect we all would adjust to a new dietary intake or consumption, but it may be possible. This is a long way of saying I am not sure if there is a thing as finite resources i.e. a point at which there are no solutions, no answers, just death because of over-population. I have driven across the United States literally countless times - what I have seen is a lot of empty land. We may be crying the sky is falling only because we really aren't interested in adapting. In closing, Thinking, I think you were correct - I was refuting my own conscious talking and telling me to use common sense. Maybe I should have clarified that we each can talk about concepts or ideas, but I for one am not interested in saying that we each need to react in a specific say. For me it remains a deeply personal choice. Coming from a family of seven children while growing up on my dad's sergeant salary we skimped a lot to feed everyone, but we did it. All but one of my siblings attended college/got a BA or MA. I hope we don't let fear affect all our decisions about life.
Thinking Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: This is a long way of saying I am not sure if there is a thing as finite resources i.e. a point at which there are no solutions, no answers, just death because of over-population. I have driven across the United States literally countless times - what I have seen is a lot of empty land. We may be crying the sky is falling only because we really aren't interested in adapting. It's not just about empty land. http://geoawesomeness.com/earths-capacity-many-people-can-support/
Meerkat Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Thinking said: Yes, but then you continued... I interpreted the rest of your post as a refutation of that one sentence. And now for your other question... I should have been more specific with my question about finite resources as I was considering a grander scale. Population growth cannot continue exponentially because the planet does not have unlimited resources. If the human population approaches that threshold, what would your opinion be? Floating cities, cities in the mountains, in the deserts. Urbanize the cities we have and build up. Convert sewage and refuse to food. Farm the sea. More gardening. Space, the new frontier. There is a lot of land to spread out in nearly all countries. Necessity, mother of invention figures out a way. Elon Musk's reusable rocket. I'm not concerned. Consider the lilies of the field. God knows what He's doing. We don't need to worry. Leave inspiration to the individuals and their God.
Meerkat Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Thinking said: It's not just about empty land. http://geoawesomeness.com/earths-capacity-many-people-can-support/ That presupposes no wars, no flu epidemics, few natural disasters. It presupposes the Savior delaying His coming indefinitely. With the Lotd's help, we can handle anything. 1
Storm Rider Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 7 hours ago, Thinking said: It's not just about empty land. http://geoawesomeness.com/earths-capacity-many-people-can-support/ Thinking, I agree with you that it is good to be conscious of what is happening in the world and what we are doing about it. The problem with your link is based on its assumptions: "To put these figures into perspective, consider this: If all humans started living at the standards of Qatar, we would need another four earths to sustain ourselves. And this is without factoring in the additional stress that would arise if we put climate change into the equation. Rising sea levels in China and changes in precipitation patterns in some parts of Africa are just a couple of examples of how scientists are worrying about these regions’ capability to support human habitation and agriculture in the future." "Harvard University scientist Edward O. Wilson wrote in his 2002 book The Future of Life, “If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people.” Now, it’s extremely unlikely that we all will stop eating meat. But considering the progress in agri-technologies over the years, the maximum carrying capacity of our planet can still be safely capped at around 10 billion people as far as food is concerned." These kinds of article really bother me because they create a demon based on really poor assumptions. It is not meant to enlighten people, but to scare them. First, why is there an assumption that everyone is going to live like Qataris? They are one of the richest, small communities on earth. They live they way they live because the government pays for the infrastructure and the standard of living. If the current government was not paying the cost the Qataris would return to their nomadic lifestyle of seventy years ago - that is 70 years ago. All of their assumptions appear to be based upon the humans being the most stupid, making no advancements in food production, inability to move their homes, etc. This article does not include any of the new technology that is being developed to feed a much greater population size. I think that humans will be forced to change and that pressure will drive the demand for invention, which will answer the demands of a bigger population base. Now, if someone is asking will I be able to live exactly like I do today.....then I don't think the answer will be yes, We will all change just like all generations before us have changed. There are no boogeymen under the bed - just humans doing what humans do.
Storm Rider Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 Hello Thinking, Here is an article that I just skimmed - it does not paint as near a bleak picture of feeding the world as your link. I thought you might enjoy it. How to Feed the World in 2050.
Thinking Posted February 28, 2018 Author Posted February 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Hello Thinking, Here is an article that I just skimmed - it does not paint as near a bleak picture of feeding the world as your link. I thought you might enjoy it. How to Feed the World in 2050. That's a nice article but it does not address the 10 billion person population threshold because in 2050, the estimate is 9.1 billion.
Storm Rider Posted February 28, 2018 Posted February 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Thinking said: That's a nice article but it does not address the 10 billion person population threshold because in 2050, the estimate is 9.1 billion. It was not the one I was looking for, but I thought it at least addressed the topic from a more neutral position. My take-away is that humanity has a lot of options; we are not going to enter the future flat-footed and that we may again meet the challenges of continued population growth or possible contraction even we end up trying to blow everyone up.
CV75 Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 On 2/27/2018 at 4:34 PM, Thinking said: What if we cross that threshold and Christ hasn't yet returmed? If we build it He will come. Just like the brother of Jared unexpectedly, yet receptively, saw the finger of the Lord. If a couple has faith in having children according to the will of the Lord and according to the light they have, grace will attend them.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 1, 2018 Posted March 1, 2018 On 2/27/2018 at 11:00 AM, JLHPROF said: There was a belief in the early Church that sexual relations were for procreation only. Don't want a kid, no sex. There was likewise a belief against relations during pregnancy that was traced to scripture. These beliefs were practiced to various degrees in the early Church at the very least through the turn of the century and slowly began to diminish. The adoption of the Manifesto brought some of them to light. In your 1960s quote we can see the remnants of the teaching. In the Church today we occasionally hear a random teaching hinting at this doctrine, but officially the Church teachings have softened, just as the wording of the law of Chastity covenant became more relaxed and less specific over time. 21.4.4 Birth Control It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter. Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. Just another example of doctrines and Church position developing over time. CFR regarding the “belief in the early Church.”
mrmarklin Posted March 2, 2018 Posted March 2, 2018 On 2/25/2018 at 12:24 PM, Thinking said: It's no secret that in the past LDS leaders condemned birth control. Presently that decision is left to the husband and wife. As the world population increases, will the LDS Church ever encourage its members to limit the size of their families? AFAIK there is no official position now. I don’t think any endorsements will be forthcoming.
Recommended Posts