Thu 24th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Wed 23rd Jul 2014 at 16:03pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Britain should follow Russia’s lead and urge its citizens to have more children

You don’t need to ask the experts for a solution to population decline. It stares one in the face: more babies

By on Wednesday, 8 December 2010

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (Photo: PA)

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (Photo: PA)

The recent annual speech to the nation of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has caught my eye. In it he urges Russians to have more children. He declares: “In the next 15 years we will feel the demographic effects of the 1990s when the birth rate was low. This is a serious threat. It is a challenge to our whole nation. According to the experts, a good way to get over the demographic crisis is to radically increase the number of families with three or more children.”

You don’t need to ask experts the answer to this problem. It stares one in the face: more babies. Of the European countries, Russia, Italy, the Ukraine, Spain and Germany are the worst affected by the fall in the birth rate – but it is happening here too. Improved healthcare means an increase of the elderly population; the routine use of oral contraceptives since the 1960s and the routine acceptance of abortion when contraception fails account for the lack of population replacement at the base.

I have some sympathy for President Medvedev’s plea. He is a child of the former Soviet Union, that gigantic failed experiment in Communism, when both men and women worked punitive hours, families lived in tiny, cramped apartments shared with other families and the number of abortions exceeded the number of live births. Russia was not a happy place in which to raise “three or more children”. Now, with a steadily shrinking population and with its demographically swollen neighbour, China, gazing hungrily at Russia’s empty eastern provinces, the president can be forgiven for feeling scared.

But we in Britain, without having experienced anything like the social sufferings of Russia, also have a declining population – only checked at present by immigration. The Government talks grimly of pushing back the age of retirement and cutting back on state pensions; as well as this there is a growing lobby to “ease” the elderly and frail into the afterlife because they are becoming too expensive to keep going.

Instead of managing this demographic decline, why doesn’t the Government offer incentives to married women to stay at home and have larger families? By the same token, why don’t our bishops, instead of simply managing the decline of parishes, tell parish priests to urge parishioners to chuck away their pills and potions (“clanking to bed” as Victoria Gillick, a mother of 10, once described it) and fill the pews with new faces? This would not only be in line with Church teaching (remember Humanae Vitae?), it would also reinvigorate society at large – and as a spin-off, might even produce more priests.

Once, when visiting a French colony, General de Gaulle surveyed the barren landscape, then ordered palm trees to be planted. “But it takes 100 years for a palm tree to reach its full height!” he was told. “All the more important to plant them immediately,” the general replied. It takes 30 years to renew the younger generation of the active population, according to demographic expert Gerard-Francois Dumont, who works for Human Life International. All the more important to plan for it now. Otherwise, as Dumont states in a fearsome image, we might in years to come be “celebrating” the “Feast of Kronos” – that figure from mythology who rejected the future by devouring his own children.

  • Judy

    The Catholic church is wonderful.

  • paul

    yeah and equally you are a stalker, because you manager to comment every one of my posts.

    When someone does not listen to reason, common-sense or proven science and sings their own tune without listening to what I and everyone else sane in the world has to say, as louella was doing then I think I'm entitled to some make such a remark, if only to shake them out of the trance they are in.

    I only started listening to the arguments that people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins make against the Church because of their obnoxiousness, but at least it made me sit up and notice and question myself, my beliefs and the positions that the Church holds.

  • RevDrJohnHunt
  • RevDrJohnHunt
  • Godieoldcunt

    “why doesn’t the Government offer incentives to married women to stay at home and have larger families?” It's called welfare or social assistance, now go die you crazy old religious cunt.

  • EditorCT

    paul, there is no such thing as “proven science”
    http://www.psychologytoday.com

    And sorry, no, but you are not entitled to call louella (or anyone else) a “nutcase.” When someone resorts to personal attacks, it's clear they've lost the argument.

    Apart from a bit of banter, which makes blogging fun, the kind of nastiness that, frankly, you have shown to louella, is very offputting for most people. Most of us are interested in looking at the arguments put forward by people in the Church. We're not really interested in personalities – or we shouldn't be.

    Our defence or criticism of bloggers has to be based on what they write – exploring, correcting, agreeing, whatever. But please don't descend to personal nastiness. It doesn't affect me, I'm well used to it and have a very thick skin but I suspect louella might be hurt by such comments and there is no need to hurt someone simply because they don't agree with you, paul.

  • EditorCT

    Roger,

    the world will end one day – if that is what you are getting at. In that sense, “the planet is physically finite” but until that day, God has assured us that He will provide.

    And by the way, it was the scientific community who were wrong about Galileo, not the Church. The Church has no competence to pronounce on science, and the churchmen of the day simply followed the scientific community's widely held opinion. A bit like the nutty environmental lobby today have fooled our “green Pope.” One day these dire predictions of environmental doom and gloom will be the laughing stock of the scientific world and there will be a “Roger” or two around, I dare say, to criticise the Church for going along with it. Only “the Vatican” and the “green Pope” is going along with it, Roger, not “the Church…”

  • EditorCT

    Yes, Roger. The moral law is the root of Catholic teaching on contraception. It's not something that the Church can change. Just as we'd all be astonished if we woke up to headlines saying the Pope had waived the ban on stealing or adultery, that those Commandments no longer applied, so it is with any deliberate action to prevent conception. Here's a link to the landmark encyclical which merely restated this teaching.http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat

    As you will see, the encyclical makes clear that the Church is merely the guardian of the moral law. She has no power to change it.

  • EditorCT

    I've flagged this nasty comment. You really should not be out alone.

  • EditorCT

    I've flagged your disgraceful and crude cartoon. I presume you are a minister of some Protestant sect.

  • EditorCT

    I've flagged this disgraceful cartoon.

  • EditorCT

    Having looked at your crude and nasty cartoon above, I'm not really inclined to respond to any of your posts. Yet, it is very likely that you are a minister of what passes for religion in some Protestant sect or cult, so I'll say a few words (not least since it was the apostate priests, Luther and Knox, who led you into error in the first place.)

    I don't see the point of your scripture quotes since they merely emphasise the passing nature of this life, that we must not store up treasures in this world, and forget about the treasures of grace we will need to get us into the next world.

    Your list is unimpressive. It's the same old, same old. There's not a shred of evidence for anything on your list, so start thinking outside the environmental propaganda box, please and thank you.

    Please indulge me by confirming (a) that you are (or are not) a Protestant clergyman of some kind and (b) if you believe that God will (or will not) provide for his creatures, the human race, as long as the earth endures.

    Simple questions. Straight answers please. And no crudity, please. Real Catholics don't DO crudity.

  • EditorCT

    I've answered this above. Post duplicated.

  • EditorCT

    Are you being deliberately disingenuous? The cartoonist was (very obviously) responding to the claims by the alleged scientists/environmentalists (with the emphasis on “mental”) by making the point about wealth. So don't be daft.

    You keep repeating the quote about not laying up treasures on earth. It's the environmentalists who go on about wealth, not Christians. So, I really think you have misunderstood the video. Take another look, with open eyes and mind.

    The rest of your post parrots the rubbish, completely unfounded, from the eco-warriors, at war with the human race, special agents engaged in killing off babies, even in the womb.

    But God says to us “do not worry about tomorrow, what you are to eat …. your father in Heaven knows that you need all of these things… Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself.”

    Don't you believe that, RevDrJohnHunt?

  • louella

    Actually Population growth creates the incentive for economic and scientific development and reduces poverty. If the population controllers had been around centuries ago…..the industrial revolution would never have happened. And we would still be living hand to mouth in dire poverty in small farmholds. Population growth along with advances in science, provided the markets, workforce and the incentive for industrialisation.

    Without population growth…..the world stagnates. God has planned it so! The future will belong to those who follow His laws and his model for society.

  • louella

    There is no consensus on climate change….in fact shrinking populations will have a more detrimental effect on nations than supposed climate change. Shrinking populations are a time bomb waiting to go off……but nobody likes to mention it because they are partial to birthcontrol themselves.

    So while our governments like to spout about so-called climate change and the supposed disasterous effects of a growing population…..they mitigate the effects of their ageing populations with mass immigration. Hypocritical much AND contradictory. Secular governments couldn't run a chip shop!! Time for the return of the Catholic State!

  • Ennab

    Perhaps those who think the world is doomed because of their being too many people live in big cities like London, which feel overcrowded and chaotic. Fact is, most of the world's land mass is not populated at all. And we, resourceful, intelligent humans have already learned techniques like irrigation and land reclamation from the sea. Not to mention that we are able to live fairly comfortably in cold climates. Take Great Britain to see where the priorities of the, lets say, ruling class have always lay; the highlands of Scotland were cleared of people living on small farms, to make way for sheep. And if you ever visit, you will see the ruins of small communities that were getting on alright, albeit not very wealthy. This fear of other people somehow making life worse for everyone comes from the top down- those with a lot of wealth tend to have small families, while the poor are generous in their family sizes, realising that we have to rely on each other to survive; not our second and third homes and wodges of cash. The wealthy then start to fear that they will be somehow in danger from there being more (relatively) poor people than them, and that they might start asking questions about the unequal distribution of wealth. So they propagandise about “environmental calamity” and overpopulation (they do, after all own most of the media). Don't be deluded, start asking why we don't begin to open up the earth more for habitation before you suggest ways of destroying the human race.

  • louella

    And while we shouldn't chase wealth as an end in itself…..it can't be denied that those who follow God's laws and plans do as an unintended consequence create wealth and lift many out of the evil of poverty.

    But by following our secular 'masters'….we bring destruction upon ourselves.

  • tallise

    To save Louella and CTEditor the trouble: “God will provide”!

  • louella

    He certainly will tallise…..but only for those who trust in Him and follow His ways! Oh chuchks!

  • louella

    Don't worry…..if people like you had been around some 400 years ago …..and effective contraception were available….then we would never have had any population increase nor any economic, industrial or scientific development.

    I guess all economic activity will now transfer to that part of the globe that has a thriving birthrate. And I guess our secular governments will import that part of the globe to the dying defunct West too. And remember….nobody said we were supposed to stay on this one planet forever! Where did atheists get that backward idea from?!

  • TreenonPoet

    You say “if the situation required” as if it would be a trivial matter for the UK to reduce its reliance on food imports. As I see it, the process would entail major changes to the way that the UK economy works. The consequent improvement in agriculture would take years to bear fruit (if I can use that metaphor) – growing of trees, training, housing of farm labour, etc. I would be in favour of such changes, but I do not detect any enthusiasm in government.

    Even if the changes were made, there would remain a limit to the arable area. I accept that new technologies may ameliorate the problem, but they might not. One should not assume that science will come to the rescue. So there may come a point at which the population cannot be sufficiently fed, so cannot grow in number. Would you then throw up your hands and say that the UK is going to go out with a whimper? Of course not. Scientific development would not suddenly become impossible. Trade and defence would still be possible, just as they have been during historic periods of population stability.

    I do not share EditorCT's greed for ever-increasing wealth and hatred of environmentalists. Surely it is better to try to understand what damage we are doing to the environment so that we can change our ways accordingly – to the benefit of all humans and other forms of life. Where we do not yet fully understand, it is prudent to be cautious. Where we think we do understand (as with the greenhouse effect), it is madness to proceed in a contrary direction. We understand that many environmental problems would be less of a concern if there were less people. No-one is suggesting slaughtering people to achieve this (let alone wiping out the human race as another poster would have it). As you have pointed out, there are problems with reducing populations to sustainable levels, but I do not accept that the penalties are as severe as you imply. It may be necessary to reduce the standard of living in affluent countries. To me, that is better than committing future generations to absolute misery.

  • TreenonPoet

    Do you mean a Catholic state like Ireland, or the Philippines, or the Vatican?

  • Roger

    Thank you for reply. I have read Humanae Vitae, (I had done so in part before)and I feel that it does not answer my question. It refers frequently to the Church, and the doctrines laid down by it. For example it says'The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.' and 'Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control'

    I am aware of the doctrines of the Church, but my question was where does the teaching derive from? As expressed in HV, it seems to be saying it is so because we say so. There must be more to it than that. Is there anything in scripture that leads the Church to this position, for example?

  • Roger

    That's interesting. You say that only the Catholic faith can stop the destruction of nations. Then you say that Islam could do the same. What do these two have in common? Certainly not details of belief. Are you saying then that details of belief are not important? The only similarity I can see is an unwillingness to allow followers to think freely for themselves.

  • TreenonPoet

    Given this massive cover-up, where do you get your information from?

  • louella

    What they both have in common is an emphasis on family and regeneration…..which as well as being a virtue is also highly practical in earthly terms…..as God is also Master of earthly material systems as well as the spiritual. He created both the seen and the unseen in other words…..and all belong to Him. But the similarities between our religions are only skin deep……while Muslims reject Christ as God Made Man…..the Incarnation is Central to Catholicism.

    Free thinkers are not what is needed………truth thinkers are what we need. A lot of so-called free thinking is nonsense!!

  • EditorCT

    Roger,

    I'm always surprised by this dual argument that it's not enough for the Church to say contraception (or anything else) is wrong “because the Church says so” quickly followed by “there has to be more to it, surely, from where does the teaching derive?” Surprised, for a couple of reasons including the fact that the answer to these two arguments is the same. I'll return to this in a moment.

    I’m surprised, first, though, because nobody asks these questions of, for example, the police or other authority-endowed organizations. If the police pull us over in our cars on the road, we obey, simply because the police have the authority to pull us over. We may not like it, we may even feel victimized. But we obey because, bottom line, they say so and they say so on good authority.

    Similarly, if we defy a judge, we might even find ourselves in prison on a contempt of court charge and that, precisely because the judge has the authority to instruct our behaviour while we are in his court. End of.

    Scripture teaches us that Christ – that is, God – endowed His Church with His divine authority, to teach, to interpret both the Scriptures themselves and natural law, in order to ascertain what God has revealed. To give us the confidence that the Church is right, and that we must obey, Christ told his first apostles: “He that hears you hears Me…” Couldn't be clearer. This, with the other Petrine verses, giving Peter the “keys” to Heaven – i.e. the authority to rule the Church on earth, in order to teach us what we need to know, what laws we must observe, to attain Heaven – makes absolutely clear that when the Church is teaching, with the full weight of Her authority, then we can be certain that this is God's will for us – not just for Catholics, by the way, but for the entire human race. Informal chats with journalists, of course, is not one of the recognized ways for a Pope to teach. Private comments or speeches, ditto. But when a Pope is speaking as “Peter” then, we must obey. The Church is guaranteed not to err in formal teaching on Faith and Morals. That is the conclusion of all the great Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, including great saints who have studied all the writings, Old and New Testaments included, to work out precisely why God instituted His Church and to define the nature, extent and limits of papal and episcopal authority.

    Pope Paul VI recognizes the authority and responsibility of the Church in interpreting the Moral Law, in paragraph 4 of Humanae Vitae where he refers to the “competency” of the Church to legislate on the moral law: he also indicates that the roots of this teaching, about which you asked, lies in the moral teaching about marriage. Here is paragraph 4, in case you missed it or did not quite realize its significance: obviously, the footnotes are to be found in the original document – I’ve already given you the link to Humanae Vitae should you wish to check the footnotes. Here's Pope Paul VI:

    Interpreting the Moral Law

    4. This kind of question requires from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection on the principles of the moral teaching on marriage—a teaching which is based on the natural law as illuminated and enriched by divine Revelation.

    No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

    In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4) … END OF PARAGRAPH 4.

    Then comes the paragraph explaining the establishment of a commission to look at the issue of birth control (a very bad idea, in my view, raising false hopes that there might be a change in teaching.) This paragraph is followed by paragraph 6 explaining why the Pope could not accept the commission's conclusions.

    The Magisterium's Reply

    6. However, the conclusions arrived at by the commission could not be considered by Us as definitive and absolutely certain, dispensing Us from the duty of examining personally this serious question. This was all the more necessary because, within the commission itself, there was not complete agreement concerning the moral norms to be proposed, and especially because certain approaches and criteria for a solution to this question had emerged which were at variance with the moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.

    Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions. END OF PARAGRAPH 6

    Then, Roger, as we know, the Pope re-affirmed what Christians from the beginning have believed and accepted – that it is not God’s will for the possibility of new life to be deliberately frustrated through pills and other devices. If he’d wanted to be popular, the Pope would have changed this teaching. Reputedly when lambasted by a Cardinal for failing to change this teaching, a Cardinal who accused him of having changed his own position, because as Cardinal Montini he had expressed a different view, Pope Paul VI said: “That was Cardinal Montini – but I am Peter…” Thus the great guarantee of infallibility at work. The Church will never approve false teaching. Hence the private opinions of Cardinal Montini never became embodied in Catholic doctrine, just as the false teaching of Pope John XX11 on the Last Judgment never became embodied in Catholic doctrine, and just as Pope Benedict XVI’s private opinions on condoms use will never become embodied in Catholic doctrine. The worst that can happen is that some through to much confusion is caused for a time and for that the individual pontiff will answer to God. The Church, however, is indefectible, cannot err, and will never formally teach error. That is guaranteed.

    And why? Well, the clue is in the closing words of Humanae Vitae, with which I’ll close this post, hoping that it answers your question about the roots of Catholic teaching on contraception (and, indeed, everything else…)

    Conscious of his role as Pastor of souls, Pope Paul VI commends his encyclical to t he world:

    “…For man cannot attain that true happiness for which he yearns with all the strength of his spirit, unless he keeps the laws which the Most High God has engraved in his very nature. These laws must be wisely and lovingly observed. On this great work, on all of you and especially on married couples, We implore from the God of all holiness and pity an abundance of heavenly grace as a pledge of which We gladly bestow Our apostolic blessing.”

  • paulsays

    Funny, it's just that my definition of propaganda would be false information presented as fact promoting an idea or cause. Don't mind if I am highly skeptical of your 'information' as it comes from a Christian group promoting a specific cause, rather than a university or research group.

    Now I'm not saying that you don't have a legitimate position over contraception and over abortion (I presume that is what you are referring in population control), but please don't dress your argument up in pseudo science from a Christian website that has no independent research, and a cartoon video that shows a preposterous idea of how the economy works.

    I suggest you stick to your moral reasoning on population control, however if you still truly believe that as your video shows that large families are the only way to prosperity, then please give me some unbiased evidence i.e. not from the Humanist Society and not from a Christian Group, a neutral scientific study from a respected source. (I'm not expecting a reply by the way, you'll not find anything)
    If you want the truth, look at this list of birth rates and their respective countries:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

    With the highest birth rate Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone and the lowest being Germany, Japan, Hong Kong and Italy. Do I need to give you the GDP figures as well or should I leave my humiliation of your argument at that?

  • paulsays

    Funny, it's just that my definition of propaganda would be false information presented as fact promoting an idea or cause. Don't mind if I am highly skeptical of your 'information' as it comes from a Christian group promoting a specific cause, rather than a university or research group.

    Now I'm not saying that you don't have a legitimate position over contraception and over abortion (I presume that is what you are referring in population control), but please don't dress your argument up in pseudo science from a Christian website that has no independent research, and a cartoon video that shows a preposterous idea of how the economy works.

    I suggest you stick to your moral reasoning on population control, however if you still truly believe that as your video shows that large families are the only way to prosperity, then please give me some unbiased evidence i.e. not from the Humanist Society and not from a Christian Group, a neutral scientific study from a respected source. (I'm not expecting a reply by the way, you'll not find anything)
    If you want the truth, look at this list of birth rates and their respective countries:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L

    With the highest birth rate Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone and the lowest being Germany, Japan, Hong Kong and Italy. Do I need to give you the GDP figures as well or should I leave my humiliation of your argument at that?

  • louella

    Ireland is a secular democracy….I'm not sure about the Phillipines and the Vatican is a special case. By a Catholic State I mean one where the moral laws only are governed by the Church and follow Church doctrine. As I understand it Catholic State was the norm across Europe for a thousand years before the Reformation. This is the foundation state of the West!

  • paulsays

    please never become a politician, frankly I fear if you have any position of power.

    Democracy needs different points of view, so I presume you reject an elected parliament and you would want to install a dictatorship of the Church no doubt?

  • paulsays

    Most people on message-boards get it very quickly and do develop a thick skin. If louella had a problem with my light-hearted banter then she has my apologies. 'Our defence or criticism of bloggers has to be based on what they write' – I did have a problem with what louella was saying in that she would not listen to any of my posts or engage in any kind of discussion, rather it was like she was simply speaking to herself, personally I think this is unhealthy for the message board and personally if she is not willing to even look at another point of view. 'A lot of so-called free thinking is nonsense!!' she says in referring to discussion

    Science is not an ultimate truth as it stands, but as more research goes on we slowly near something closer and closer to what is true. In terms of philosophy Descartes taught us that the only knowable thing was that we ourselves exist, however in switching on a light-bulb, sitting down in a chair or taking a flight abroad we are all relying on science that may not be entirely provable.

    For example a survey of 5 million people in Britain asking what their favorite colour is, would not prove what Britain's favorite colour is, even if the sample size was increased to 30 million people and all areas of the country, both genders, all races etc. were fairly sampled. However, any sane person would belive the result, even if it is not technically proven.

  • paulsays

    because of course a Catholic State would take into account all these scientific findings properly, rather then lying like the International conspiracy amongst scientists that is now the case. Oh, I nearly forgot the Church's attitude to science like putting Galileo under house arrest all of his life.

  • louella

    Well …..why don't you present evidence of the opposite…..that small ageing populations lead to prosperity! It doesn't make sense does it?! And Germany, Hong Kong and Italy have had large populations….that are ageing now…..and precipitating demogrpahic, cultural and financial collapse!

    We've done it your way….and it's not working! And why does the govenment need soooo much immigration…..if an ageing declining population is just soooooo advantageous. It doesn't add up does it?! They say one thing and do another. And watch out…..when stability is restored to the Congo….it will prosper. China seems to think so anyhow……and so do I! But for the atheist West….it's decline all the way as its population ages. Time for the restoration of the Catholic State!!

  • TreenonPoet

    (I mentioned the Philippines because the disasterous effects of a growing population there are far from 'supposed'. Their Government are waking up to the consequent poverty and suffering, and are supporting birth control, even though most of the population consider themselves to be Catholic. Needless to say, the Filipino Church is opposing this attempt to reduce suffering.)

    So you would prefer a pre-reformation type Catholic state! Are you aware of the methods of torture that were used by the Catholic Church against heretics? At the risk of having my post removed, I must say that my idea of morality is nowhere near the Church's. Roughly speaking, my morals are based on the desire to reduce present and future suffering. To encourage population growth beyond the sustainable level is, in my judgement, immoral.

  • louella

    Needs must. If there is a demand…..any farmer worht his salt will meet it. And haven't you heard about ingenious schemes where whole skyscrapers are turned over to growing vegetables without any soil……but raised in pipes of nutrient rich water in the middle of cities!!

    We do not advocate ever increasing wealth….which is a pipe dream anyhow….but ever increasing populations. This will lead to moderate propserity, continual scientific development and economic growth. You have the same mentality as Malthus …who has been proved wrong over and over again ie population growth does not lead to famine and worse living standards. The opposite history has shown is the case. I'm afraid with an atheist outlook the future will be very bleak and hopeless…..but not with a Catholic one which is more creative. Don't you think its time for you atheists to move over……and let Catholics lead for a change. After all you have just brought the West to its knees! Pretty pathetic.

  • louella

    A Catholic State would be run on the basis that Christ was actually God Himself….and on the principles He and His Church teach are those on which a nation should be run. Science does not tell you what to do…..but the Church does in a moral sense. And the moral base is the most important for a nation and civilisation. When that collapses…..so does everything else.

    I bet you anything science proves this to be true. You only have a quick look at the birthrates to see the dire situation we are in regarding ageing shrinking populations. If something is not done…it will spell the end of the developed world. But of course there is great hope for those nations that decide not to follow the West…ie China and Central Africa. After seeing the pitiful state of the atheist West…..I think they will opt for Catholicism.

  • Ennab

    You're the one talking about massive cover ups; I'm just stating the bloomin' obvious.

  • TreenonPoet

    The best farmer cannot meet demand if the required resources are not available.

    Yes, I have heard of schemes such as you describe, which is why I wrote “new technologies may ameliorate the problem”. Even if the food problem was solved forever, there are other reasons for limiting population.

    A cautionary approach is required in economics. It is not wise to have blind faith in market forces, for example. (Some organisations, whom I shall not name, make it their business to promote blind faith.) Some of our leaders seem to have convictions that are unstirred by carefully considered, logically presented, repeated, rational advice to the contrary. I would guess that the religious mind is more susceptible to this problem. Perhaps it is a quality that drives people to become leaders. (Are we doomed to have mainly reckless leaders?) I am not aware of many non-religious leaders, so I am not sure who it is you are asking to move over.

  • EditorCT

    Try Googling Alex Jones – I've not had time to study his videos myself, but I know a man who has done and it seems Mr Jones is very well informed about all sorts of things that the powers-that-be don't want the hoi polloi to know about.

  • paulsays

    'nutcase' could be offensive to the easily offended, but frankly to me what louella says is incredibly racist and unless sarcastic, lacking in any knowledge of the facts, objectively based an the figures she is acting like an idiot you/she find that any more polite.

    'I don't think the government cares if the indigenous UK population were to be replaced by large scale mass immigration'

    150,000 immigrants enter the country each year, many of whom are leaving places of oppression for their beliefs (a complaint many Catholics make), or likelihood of torture or murder. Many are economic migrants who contribute to the UK economy. You can argue whether this is too many, but it is certainly not going to replace the indigenous population anytime soon and neither is it a 'conspiracy' from the government. Germany, France and the Netherlands all have significantly higher levels of immigration.

  • EditorCT

    With respect,paulsays (I'm presuming you're my old friend, paulpriest in disguise?) the source of the information I gave should not matter one iota. If the information is true, if the facts are facts, what difference does it make whether it comes from the British Humanist Association or the British Medical Association? Politically incorrect information is not easy to come by – hence rebellion in the guise of WikiLeaks.

    Here's an extract from an article in the Washington Times, followed by the link to the entire article.

    “Not only have the facts proved Mr. Mosher's Christian-derived beliefs true — the tremendous increase in global population since World War II has been accompanied by tremendous increases in prosperity and scientific achievement instead of the mass starvation and other disastrous consequences predicted by population controllers — but he sounds the alarm about the coming underpopulation crisis.Population control, including its First World variant of anti-family materialism, has become far too successful”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…/

    Now, paulsays, I really don't know if you are deliberately misinterpreting the video I posted, on the overpopulation myth, but the information given clearly make sense to anyone of average intelligence, so I'm inclined to think you just don't want to face the truth if it undermines your beliefs. Highly nonacademic.

    Perhaps if I was surrounded by thousands of young people and the supermarket shelves were empty as a result of them all working, paying taxes and building such a strong economy that society was in dire straights and facing an imminent, impoverished end, I might think you had a point, but right now, with the coffin-dodging community on the increase and the birth control pundits winning the argument with the co-habitees having cats and dogs but not babies, I'm really not that concerned. I'm too busy wondering if there will be enough qualified nurses around to take care of me when I'm shunted off to the nursing home, where my end of life care is likely to consist of a mandatory cup of whatever will take me, most speedily, to the next world.

  • EditorCT

    “Not only have the facts proved Mr. Mosher's Christian-derived beliefs true — the tremendous increase in global population since World War II has been accompanied by tremendous increases in prosperity and scientific achievement instead of the mass starvation and other disastrous consequences predicted by population controllers — but he sounds the alarm about the coming underpopulation crisis.Population control, including its First World variant of anti-family materialism, has become far too successful”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…/

  • EditorCT

    What you HAVE forgotten, is that it was the scientific community – not the Church – which gave Galileo a very hard time. Or maybe you didn't know that?

  • EditorCT

    You've obviously not visited the Scottish Government website.
    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/New

    Declining populations are – manifestly – the problem, not overpopulation.

    And although Margo MacDonald's euthanasia bill was defeated recently, first time she brought it to Holyrood, she's determined to return to the fray until it gets passed into law. Passed into law euthanasia will be and not just in Scotland.

    The saying “be careful what you wish for” should give the baby-haters foot for thought. A world full of golden oldies like my glamorous self, might not be the Utopia you are all dreaming about. Well, not in the blogosphere anyway!

  • EditorCT

    Roger, have you seen this? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/New

    Under-population is the problem. And with euthanasia next on the anti-life agenda, there won't even be all that many Grannies around either. Mind you, with no babies to take care of, who needs a granny?

  • EditorCT

    Anyone who thinks we live in a “democracy” just because we're not (yet) followed around by men in raincoats, really needs help. Or maybe yours is the one street in the UK which doesn't have a camera fitted?

  • TheBlueWarrior

    This article is spot on. The forces of ecomonics will ensure that a declining home-grown population is replenished through immigration; the net result for Britain being that Anglo-Saxons will eventually contracept themselves out of existence in favour of peoples more open to life.

    But it is not enough to speak only of increased birth rates; we must also reexamine Western attitudes that view children as a commodity or accessory to be acquired–or avoided–by any means available. And as a start we need to return pride of place to the institution of marriage between man and woman as the microcosim of a stable society.

    By the way, the entire 6 billion global population could stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the boroughs that make up Greater London. It does not seem intuitive or inevitable that this comparitively pinhead-sized mass has already filled this world to capacity. Don't be as short-sighted as the Tudor thinker who declared that the population of England could never exceed 5 million people lest every tree in the land be cut down for firewood.

    “As the family goes, so goes the nation and so goes the whole world in which we live.”–Pope John Paul the Great

  • paulsays

    If you managed to take the time to think outside of religious dogma for just one minute you would realize the unimaginable pain that the people of countries like Sierra Leone and Congo have to face, in terms of poverty, war, famine and death. Around 40% of Congo's population are refugees from the civil war.

    An aging population may be an issue, as is a growing world population, but you are entirely deluded and very ignorant to think that places with higher birthrates get it better, there is an exact correlation between GDP and birthrate, lower birthrates = richer healthier society. The best birth rate would be around 2.5 children which the government can encourage through thinks like tax breaks etc, as it would keep the country around replacement rates. However, considering we have one of the highest population densities in Europe a measure such as this really is not needed now.

    As far as England is concerned it is the same story by the way:
    'The poor east London borough of Newham had the highest fertility rate with 2.87 children per woman while more affluent Westminster had the lowest (1.18)'