Changes

Contemporary concern about '''Population control''' is the practice of limiting population growth would appear to be a direct contradiction between increase, usually by reducing the Orthodox Christian ethical imperative to “be fruitful and multiplybirth rate.” Humanity The practice has sometimes been obedient voluntary, as a response to the divine command poverty, or out of religious ideology, but in some times and places it has been “fruitful” and has “multiplied” and “has filled the earth” (Gen. 1:28)government-mandated. This population growth is an empirical fact. To affirm this does not necessarily conflict with the Orthodox teaching on marriage and procreation as one generally conducted to improve quality of its purposes. Coercion of the individual couple's choices regarding their obligation life for a society or to procreate does not seem ethically appropriate. Also, Orthodox ethics opposes the use of abortion as prevent a birth control method"Malthusian catastrophe. " Advocating widespread abstinence from sexual relations by huge numbers of married people without contraception "Population control methods violates some of the purposes of marriage as understood " has also been conducted in the Orthodox Church. The use name of contraceptives within marriages to space eugenics, racism, and limit offspring seems to be the appropriate ethical response. Persuasion and education are appropriate means economic self-interest of corporations to encourage smaller familiesexploit citizens of poor countries. All Orthodox ethicists, howeverGiven the nature of human reproductive biology, would hold that respect for controlling the freedom birth rate generally implies one or more of each couple to decide must be considered the following practices: an important and significant factor of population control policysexual abstinence, contraception, same-sex relations, sterilization, abortion, or infanticide.

Ben Wattenberg's ==Orthodox Christian ethics==Contemporary concern about population growth would appear to be a direct contradiction between the Orthodox Christian ethical imperative to "be fruitful and multiply."Fewer: How In the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future" reports conclusively that fourth century St. [[John Chrysostom]] noted the world will have far fewer people than was expected even a decade ago, that in numbers and age and gender patterns this smaller population will be distributed in ways that will be significant, question and related it to the need that the implications for the environment, the economy and national security will [[sex]]ual drive be quite profoundfulfilled in [[marriage]]. The biggest news is "It was for two reasons that marriage was introduced; so that we may live in sheer numbers [[chastity]] (''sophrosyne'') and so that we might become parents. Of these the human race most important is now likely to peak at 8chastity...5 billion people instead of especially today when the United Nations projection whole inhabited world (''he oikoumene'') is full of 11our race.5 billion" Chrysostom's argument is equally relevant today. Even Humanity has been obedient to the divine command and has been "fruitful" and has "multiplied" and "has filled the Uearth" ([[Genesis|Gen]].N1:28). demographers now agree that This raises the population explosion will never reach question for Orthodox ethics regarding the numbers they had once projected. The biggest reason appropriate means for this dramatic decline was captured in an earlier book by Mrpopulation control. Wattenberg, "The Birth Dearth." Women are simply having fewer children and Coercion of the result is that in some countries population is already starting individual couple's choices regarding their obligation to go downprocreate does not seem ethically appropriate. In order to sustain the current populationAlso, Orthodox ethics opposes the average woman would have to have 2.33 childrenuse of [[abortion]] as a birth control method. Falling below that average will result Advocating widespread [[abstinence]] from sexual relations by huge numbers of married people without [[contraception]] control methods violates some of the purposes of marriage as understood in a population declinethe Orthodox Church. Today some 40 countries are already below the replacement rate The use of contraceptives within marriages to space and Mr. Wattenberg expects virtually every country limit offspring seems to be below the replacement rate by the end of our lifetimeappropriate ethical response. Persuasion and education are appropriate means to encourage smaller families. AmazinglyAll Orthodox ethicists, after all the focus on Chinese compulsory population controlhowever, it is not China would hold that has had respect for the most rapid change in birthrates among Asian countries. freedom of each couple to decide must be considered That honor goes to South Korea, where women now average only 1.17 children (even lower than Japan). China has dropped to 1.825 an important and is still decliningsignificant factor of population control policy.

Here are a few more fascinating points in this book that deserve to be singled out: 1. Europe is going to lose ==United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)==President Ronald Reagan gave his position on international population dramatically by mid-century and therefore become significantly older. This will almost certainly entail a significant shift in power and policies in economic competitiveness away from an aging and shrinking European Union. 2. Mexico is on the verge of dropping below the replacement rate; over the next generation this will almost certainly slow the rate of migration following remarks to the United States. 3. Russia is facing a demographic crisis, with the shortest lifespan for males of any industrial country and a catastrophic decline in women willing Right to bear children.Life activists (1987):

Mr. Wattenberg highlights the intellectual dishonesty :''[A]s you may be aware, some international organizations have chosen to support abortion as a means of the Paul Ehrlich, left-wing environmentalists and their factual mistakes over the last generationpopulation control. Mr. Ehrlich had predicted famines beginning in Well, the 1970s. They simply haven't happened. The global warming projections all assumed a United Nations Fund for Population Activities, or UNFPA, for example, works with Chinese population of 11.5 billionprograms, which include abortion. If the human race peaks at only 8.5 billion people - 3 billion fewer than predicted - and then starts a long-term decline, how Our response to that changes all those gloom-? We cut off American funds from UNFPA and-doom predictions. Also highlighted is the unique role of the United States as the one industrial country from overseas organizations that will keep growingsupport or promote abortion. American We believe population growth is a combination programs can and must be truly voluntary, cognizant of the highest birthrate rights and responsibilities of any industrial country (2.01 children per female) individuals and our willingness to accept immigration. Mr. Wattenberg projects that the United States will continue to grow in economic families, and other forms respectful of power, while Europe religious and Japan decline dramaticallycultural values. In the Wattenberg vision of the futureWell, there are only three large nations by 2050: China, India that means no coercive measures such as involuntary sterilization and the United Statesno use of abortion for population control.''{{ref|2}}

He concludes by noting These days the population bomb hysteria that was all the Less Developed Countries could rage in fact experience the 1960s and 1970s has largely subsided. Every prediction of massive starvation, eco-catastrophe of biblical proportions, and $100 a barrel oil has been discredited by the global economic and environmental progress of the past quarter century. Intellectually, the "Malthusian limits to growth" menace is stone dead. But within the Clinton State Department, "demographic dividendMalthusianism"flourished. He notes that poor The Clinton administration allocated almost $300 million a year to international population control—or what is euphemistically described these days as "family planning." In countries with falling ranging from India to Mexico to Nigeria to Brazil, the basic human right of couples to control their own fertility rates are growing wealthier quicker than are and determine their own family size has been trampled upon by the state, thanks in large part to flows of dollars and deluges of false limits-to-growth propaganda supplied by the rich modern American government. The UNFPA, however, has had a particularly demon-like presence in developing nations. In Back in the Reagan years, Congress sensibly pulled out of the meantime UNFPA because of its complicity in some of the New Demography is bad for most Western nationsinhumane forms of population containment. Thus Today the need to spread UNFPA maintains the vision of freedom and democracy around fiction that the worldagency has fought coercive policies. How does one explain, lest non- (or anti-) democratic nations (Islamic totalitarian states for example) win by defaultthen, by simply taking over due that UNFPA once gave an award to sheer force the Chinese government for the effectiveness of numbers. its genocidal one child per couple policy? No To this day no one really knows where these trends will take usprecisely how many babies and women have died at the hands of the population control officials in China. Much What we do know is that this program will go down in history as one of the greatest abuses of Mrhuman rights in the 20th century. Wattenberg The Chinese government's book could be called speculativeongoing birth control policy has already claimed an estimated 5-10 million victims. An estimated 80-90 percent of the victims have been girls. But it is important that good minds pay close attention to these changesUNFPA still spends millions each year on population control programs in China.

President Ronald Reagan gave his position on international population policies in the The following remarks to 'Right to Lifeis UNFPA' activists (1987) -- “as you may be aware, some international organizations have chosen to support abortion as a means s overview of population control. Well, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, or UNFPA, for example, works with Chinese population programs, which include abortion. Our response to that? We cut off American funds from UNFPA and from overseas organizations that support or promote abortion. We believe population programs can and must be truly voluntary, cognizant of the rights and responsibilities of individuals and families, and respectful of religious and cultural values. Well, that means no coercive measures such China as involuntary sterilization and no use of abortion for population control.”found on their website:

These days almost no sane person gives any credence to :''The Law of Population and Family Planning of the population bomb hysteria that was all the rage People's Republic of China went into effect in the 1960s 2002, introducing client-centered and 1970sservice-oriented approaches to reproductive health services. Every prediction Introduction of massive starvations, eco-catastrophes of biblical proportions and $100 a barrel oil the law has been discredited by considered among the most critical factors influencing the global economic and environmental progress future direction of population policy as well as the past quarter centuryprovision of family planning services. IntellectuallyThe law spells out rights and responsibilities for clients, service providers and family planning officials, the “Malthusian limits to growth menace” is stone deadas well as providing for sexual health education for students. But within the Clinton-Gore State Department, “Malthusianism” flourishedMost provinces have also formulated their own regulations. The Clinton administration allocated almost $300 million a year to international population control A client-- or what is euphemistically described these days as "family planning." In countries ranging from India to Mexico to Nigeria to Brazilcentered, quality reproductive health approach, pioneered in 32 counties with UNFPA assistance, the basic human right of couples to control their own fertility and determine their own family size has been trampled upon by replicated in over 800 other counties (one third of the statecountry's total), thanks resulting in larger part to flows of dollars and deluges of false limits-to-growth propaganda supplied by the American governmentits incorporation into national policy. The UNFPA, howeverWith a total fertility rate of about 2 lifetime births per woman, China has had sustained a particularly demon-like presence in developing nations. Back in the Reagan years, Congress sensibly pulled out of the UNFPA because of its complicity reduction in some of the most inhumane forms of population containment. Today growth over the UNFPA maintains the fiction that the agency has fought coercive policiespast three decades. How does one explain thenHowever, that UNFPA once gave an award to the Chinese government for the effectiveness of its genocidal one child per couple policy? To this day no one knows precisely how many babies and women have died at the hands current total population of the population control fanatics in China1. What we do know 3 billion is that this program will go down in history as one of the greatest abuses of human rights in the 20th centurystill a key concern. The Chinese governmentviews population issues as critical to the country's ongoing birth control policy has already claimed an estimated 5-10 million victims. An estimated 80-90 percent of the victims have been girls. UNFPA still spends millions each year on population control programs in Chinadevelopment.''{{ref|3}}

Sheldon Richmond wrote:{{ref|4}}:''The following is United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) was established in 1969, shortly after the contemporary hysteria about overpopulation was launched with Paul Ehrlich's overview of China as found on their website: book ''The Population Bomb''. “The Law of Population and Family Planning of Since that time, the UNFPA has propagandized the world with the fallacies that the world is becoming overburdened with people, that the Peopledeveloped world's Republic of China went into effect in 2002population is depleting natural resources, introducing client-centered and servicethat the developing world is doomed to poverty unless it can curtail its population growth. Accordingly, the fund has spent almost $2.5 billion on its various activities, which range from collecting data to sponsoring family-oriented approaches to reproductive health servicesplanning programs. Introduction :''But are those programs really necessary, let alone ethical? Are there really too many people? Famine, deepening poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and resource depletion are adduced as the symptoms of overpopulation. Yet on no count does the law has been considered among evidence support the most critical factors influencing anti-population lobby's case. On the contrary, the long-term trend for each factor is positive and points to an even better future direction .:''Television pictures of population policy as well as the provision starving, emaciated Africans are heartbreaking, but they are not evidence of family planning servicesoverpopulation. The law spells out rights and responsibilities for clientsSince 1985 we have witnessed famines in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, service providers and family planning officials, as well as providing for sexual health education for studentselsewhere. Most provinces Those nations have also formulated one thing in common: they are among the least densely populated areas on earth. Although their own regulationspopulations are growing, the people are not hungry because the world can't produce enough food. A client-centeredThey are hungry because civil war and primitive economies keep food them from producing food. In the 20th century there has been no famine that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, quality reproductive health approachdeliberate retribution, pioneered in 32 counties with UNFPA assistanceor natural disasters. Moreover, the number of people affected by famine compared to the number affected during the late 19th century has been replicated in over 800 other counties (one third fallen—not just as a percentage of the countryworld's total), resulting population but in absolute numbers. :''Food is abundant. Output has more than doubled in its incorporation into national policythe last 30 years. With a total fertility rate of about 2 lifetime births per womanPer capita food supplies have increased 25 percent in the developing world, China where the world's population growth is occurring. The real cost has sustained a reduction in declined. And what's true of food is also true of other resources. :''The claim that "uncontrolled" population growth over depletes resources has no more foundation than the past three decadescatastrophists' other arguments. HoweverFor centuries, resources of every kind, including energy, have been growing more plentiful and less expensive. In the current developing world, total fertility rates dropped by 40 percent. The population controllers credit their efforts, while still complaining that not enough is being done. But the beginning of 1the fall in those rates preceded their campaign.3 billion Moreover, there is still a key concernsimpler explanation: as economies develop and become richer, people tend to have fewer children. The government views population issues In preindustrial, agricultural economies, children produce wealth as critical farm workers, and later they provide retirement security for their parents. Children are assets. A large number of children correlates with wealth. In developed economies, children consume wealth, for education and the like. They are an expense. Thus people tend to the country's have fewer kids. A low fertility rate is an effect, not a cause, of development.”

The United Nations Population Fund, known as ==How the UNFPAnew demography of depopulation will shape our future==Newt Gingrich, was established in 1969his review, shortly after wrote:{{ref|5}}:''[Ben Wattenberg's ''Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future''] reports conclusively that the contemporary hysteria about overpopulation world will have far fewer people than was launched with Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb. Since expected even a decade ago, that in numbers and age and gender patterns this smaller population will be distributed in ways that timewill be significant, and that the UNFPA has propagandized implications for the world with environment, the fallacies economy and national security will be quite profound.:''The biggest news is that in sheer numbers the world human race is becoming overburdened with now likely to peak at 8.5 billion people, rather than at the earlier United Nations' projection of 11.5 billion. Even the U.N. demographers now agree that the developed worldpopulation explosion will never reach the numbers they had once projected.:''s population is depleting natural resourcesThe biggest reason for this dramatic decline was captured in an earlier book by Mr. Wattenberg, "The Birth Dearth." Women are simply having fewer children and the result is that the developing world in some countries population is doomed already starting to poverty unless it can curtail its population growthgo down. Accordingly:''[... i]n order to sustain the current population, the fund has spent almost $average woman would have to have 2.5 billion 33 children. Falling below that average will result in a population decline. Today some 40 countries are already below the replacement rate and Mr. Wattenberg expects virtually every country to be below the replacement rate by the end of our lifetime. :''Fascinatingly, after all the focus on its various activitiesChinese compulsory population control, which range from collecting data to sponsoring family-planning programsit is not China that has had the most rapid change in birthrates among Asian countries. But are those programs really necessaryThat honor goes to South Korea, let alone ethical? Are there too where women now average only 1.17 children (even lower than Japan). China has dropped to 1.825 and is still declining.:''Mr. Wattenberg makes so many people? Faminefascinating points in this thin book that it is impossible to cover them all in a review. However, deepening poverty, disease, environmental degradationa few deserve to be singled out.:#''Europe is going to lose population dramatically by mid-century and therefore become significantly older. This will almost certainly entail a significant shift in power and in economic competitiveness away from an aging and shrinking European Union.:#''Mexico is on the verge of dropping below the replacement rate; over the next generation this will almost certainly slow the rate of migration to the United States.:#''Russia is facing a demographic crisis, with the shortest lifespan for males of any industrial country and resource depletion are adduced as a catastrophic decline in women willing to bear children.:''Mr. Wattenberg highlights the symptoms intellectual dishonesty of overpopulation[...] environmentalists and their factual mistakes over the last generation. Yet on no count does Mr. [Paul] Ehrlich had predicted famines beginning in the evidence support the anti-1970s. They simply haven't happened. The global warming projections all assumed a population lobby's caseof 11.5 billion. On the contrary, If the human race peaks at only 8.5 billion people—3 billion fewer than predicted—and then starts a long-term trend for each factor decline, human environmental impact will be much reduced.:''[Also highlighted is] the unique role of the United States as the one industrial country that will keep growing. American population growth is positive a combination of the highest birthrate of any industrial country (2.01 children per female) and points our willingness to accept immigration. Mr. Wattenberg projects that the United States will continue to an even better grow in economic and other forms of power, while Europe and Japan decline dramatically. In the Wattenberg vision of the future, there are only three large nations by 2050: China, India and the United States.

Television pictures of starving, emaciated Africans are heartbreaking, but they are not evidence of overpopulation. Since 1985 we have witnessed famines He concludes by noting that the less developed countries could in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and elsewherefact experience a "demographic dividend. " Those nations have one thing in common: they are among the least densely populated areas on earth. Although their populations He notes that poor countries with falling fertility rates are growing, the people wealthier quicker than are not hungry because the world can't produce enough food. They are hungry because civil war and primitive economies keep food from getting to themrich modern nations. In the 20th century there has been no famine that has not been caused by civil war, irrational economic policies, deliberate retribution, or natural disastersmeantime the New Demography is bad for most Western nations. Moreover, Thus the number of people affected by famine compared need to spread the number affected during vision of freedom and democracy around the late 19th century has fallenworld, lest non-(or anti-not just as a percentage ) democratic nations (Islamic states for example) win by default, by simply taking over due to sheer force of the world's population but in absolute numbers. Food is abundant. Output has more than doubled in the last 30 years. Per capita food supplies have increased 25 percent in the developing world, No one really knows where the world's population growth is occurringthese trends will take us. The real cost has declinedMuch of Mr. And whatWattenberg's true of food book could be called speculative, but it is also true of other resourcesimportant that good minds pay close attention to these changes.

The claim that ==Reference==*{{note|1}} "uncontrolledMalthusian catastrophe" is a return to subsistence-level conditions as a result of agricultural (or, in later formulations, economic) production being eventually outstripped by growth in population growth depletes resources has no more foundation than the catastrophists' other arguments. For Theories of "Malthusian catastrophe" predict over several generations or centuries, resources of every kind, including energy, have been growing more plentiful and less expensive. In the developing world, total fertility rates dropped by 40 percent*{{note|2}} [http://www.reagan. The population controllers credit their efforts, while still complaining that not enough is being doneutexas. But the fall in those rates preceded their campaignedu/archives/speeches/1987/073087a. Moreover, there is htm Remarks at a simpler explanation: as economies develop and become richer, people tend White House Briefing for Right to have fewer children. In preindustrialLife Activists, agricultural economiesJuly 30, children produce wealth as farm workers, and later they provide retirement security for their parents1987]*{{note|3}} [http://www.unfpa.org/profile/china. Children are assetscfm?Section=1 United Nations Population Fund: Overview: China]*{{note|4}} [http://www. A large number of children correlates with wealthcato. In developed economies, children consume wealth, for education and the likeorg/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-6. They are an expensehtml The United Nations & Global Intervention]*{{note|5}} [http://newt. Thus people tend to have fewer kidsorg/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpinionDB/tabid/102/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/1221/PageID/1294/Default. A low fertility rate is an effect, not aspx ''Warnings for a cause, of development.shrinking world'' reviewed by Newt Gingrich]

BIBLIOGRAPHY==Sources==-*[[Harakas]], Stanley. ''Living the Faith''. Light and Life Publishing Co., 1997. ISBN 978-0937032923-*Wattenberg, Ben. ''Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future''. Ivan R. Dee (Publisher)., 2004. ISBN 978-1566636063-*Moore, Stephen. [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5457 ''Don't Fund UNFPA Population Control'']*Richmond, Sheldon. [http://www. Cato Institute (cato.org)., 1999/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-Richmond, Sheldon6. html ''The United Nations and Global Intervention'']*Gingrich, Newt. Cato Institute (cato[http://newt.org)., 1997-Gingrich, Newt/EditNewt/NewtNewsandOpinionDB/tabid/102/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/1221/PageID/1294/Default. aspx ''Warnings for a Shrinking WarWorld: Geopolitics, Environment and World Economy Affected'., (newt.org)., 2004']-*Reagan, Ronald. [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/publicpapers.html ''Public Papers of President Ronald W. Reagan'., (reagan.utexas.edu). 1981-1989']-*United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). [http://www.unfpa.org/profile/china.cfm ''Population, Health and Socio-Economic Indicators/Policy Developments- —China', (unfpa.org)']-*[[w:Population Control|''Population Control'., (wikipedia.org)' at Wikipedia]]