Thomas Malthus was an 18th/19th-century Anglican priest whose ideas have been used to back the notion that there are too many people on the planet, instead of focusing on any challenge to meeting the basic needs of humanity for food, clothing, and shelter. Like the proverbial bad penny, some ideas never seem to really go away.
Blaming People or Working With Them
-
Tracy Stone-Manning, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), argued in her graduate thesis that Americans need to engage in population control to protect the environment (Fox News, 6/24/21).
- The Sierra Club Global Population and Environment Program promotes “family planning”/ “reproductive health,” to lessen the growth of the human population and thereby enhance the health of the environment.
-
Up to 1 million species are threatened with extinction in the coming decades, and our encroachment into wildlife habitats is responsible for such catastrophes as the current global COVID-19 pandemic….We must dedicate every available resource to advocating in Washington, DC, for dramatic increases in family planning aid and to educating tomorrow’s leaders about the troubling realities of rapid population growth (Population Connection).
Some obsessing about population size has provided fertile ground for illogical inferences and a “blaming the victim” bias. This bias sees “too many” poor people but never too many affluent people. Many are quite ill-informed about actual demographics:
While the global population is still growing, some countries are experiencing a decrease in their total population. Virtually all countries are experiencing population aging…. In 2018, for the first time in history, persons aged 65 years or over worldwide outnumbered children under age five. Projections indicate that by 2050 there will be more than twice as many persons above 65 as children under five. By 2050, the number of persons aged 65 years or over globally will also surpass the number of adolescents and youth aged 15 to 24 years (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects 2019 Highlights; The UN recognizes July 11 as “World Population Day).
Populations are getting older. Along with treasuring increased life expectancy, we must not fail to appreciate the blessings of new human lives! Through God’s help and our cooperating selflessness, we can address challenges to humanity’s needs for food, clothing, and shelter. With “population aging” and dwindling numbers of young people, it is ironic that the “Who the heck is going to pay for our social security benefits” issue goes largely ignored.
People Friendly Planning
There is nothing to match a train whistle in the distance on a quiet evening. There is nothing to match propelling one’s self to 20 MPH (in my younger days) under one’s own physical power. I love both trains and bicycles, and I am glad that I have started by getting that out.
For the majority of my working years, I lived in Pennsylvania and commuted to my hometown Big Apple – usually by suburban rail and subways. My daily commute included about 130 rail miles through New Jersey. For as long as I could keep it up, it also involved cycling across the Brooklyn Bridge. When I got into my 50s, I confess that I greatly enjoyed being able to pass young adult cyclists, who had not yet caught on to the need for pacing while ascending that great bridge.
The Power Broker is Robert Cano’s Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Robert Moses (1888-1981), an unelected official who had a phenomenal impact on construction, public works, and transportation in New York City and New York State. Because Robert Moses greatly preferred automobiles to trains, Robert Cano maintains that New York City and State neglected its rail resources in favor of highway expansion.
Fast forward to 2021 and anyone who has ever sat in traffic jams on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, the Cross Bronx Expressway, and/or the Long Island Expressway (as well as countless other New York roadways) can rightfully fault that philosophy of promoting highway expansion and neglecting rails. Some of that same philosophy seems to have passed over into neighboring New Jersey. Especially in New York and New Jersey, it is bizarre that many continue to claim that are too many people, instead of recognizing that there are too many cars.
The Blue Comet
Knowing my interest in rail transportation, my son and daughter-in-law gifted me on Fathers’ Day with a Blue Comet book and a tee shirt. From 1929 to 1941, the majestic Blue Comet reigned the rails from just outside New York City through Jersey Shore coastal towns and Jersey’s Pine Barrens, en route to Atlantic City – a fairly straight route. A tragic 1939 derailment led to lights going out permanently in 1941. Though some remnants of the Blue Comet remain in decaying form, its route was never replaced. To go by rail from New York City to Atlantic City (roughly 127 miles) now requires a triangular route through Philadelphia (roughly 157 miles)
Conclusion
Catholic teaching with its absolute recognition of the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of the transmission of human life needs to inform our decisions in all spheres, including decisions about public planning/transportation.
9 thoughts on “People Friendly Planning and the Blue Comet”
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Hello again Kyle,
Our current pope, as well his predecessors and the entire Catholic tradition, certainly makes clear that the Earth, non human animals, and plants are all God’s creation to be treated with great respect. People are pre-eminent. As per his environmental encyclical, Laudato Si :
“49….we have to realize that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor”
“50….[To] blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption. ….”
“84. Our insistence that each human being is an image of God should not make us overlook the fact that each creature has its own purpose….”
“90….At times we see an obsession with denying any pre-eminence to the human person; more zeal is shown in protecting other species than in defending the dignity which all human beings share in equal measure….”
“157. Underlying the principle of the common good is respect for the human person….It has also to do with the overall welfare of society and the development of a variety of intermediate groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. Outstanding among those groups is the family, as the basic cell of society….”
“211….There is a nobility in the duty to care for creation through little daily actions, and it is wonderful how education can bring about real changes in lifestyle. Education in environmental responsibility can encourage ways of acting which directly and significantly affect the world around us, such as avoiding the use of plastic and paper, reducing water consumption, separating refuse, cooking only what can reasonably be consumed, showing care for other living beings, using public transport or car-pooling, planting trees, turning off unnecessary lights, or any number of other practices. All of these reflect a generous and worthy creativity which brings out the best in human beings. Reusing something instead of immediately discarding it, when done for the right reasons, can be an act of love which expresses our own dignity.”
The Church is following its mandate to proclaim the incredibly great news in its teachings on human life, human sexuality, and the environment .
God bless,
Joe
Hi Joe,
I actually agree 100% with all of those quotes from Laudato Si. Humans are pre-eminent, and there are some that seem to disagree. Finding an appropriate balance is the tough part.
And my comments were more around the fact that there is an eventual limit to what the earth can support. And also that Catholic culture needs to stop treating large families as holier than smaller families. The size of one’s family does not affect how good or holy it is. The pope has also said that Catholics don’t need to “breed like rabbits”. I hope this aspect of the pope’s teaching spreads a little further.
I think we’re probably much closer to agreement than we originally thought, but I’m sure there are some differences that remain.
Thanks again for the article and the discussion,
Kyle
Hello Kyle,
Thanks for your interest in the article.
I believe that demographics can get wrongly cited as reasons that we supposedly have (or will have) too many people. To paraphrase the great St Mother Teresa of Calcutta: saying we have too many people is like saying we have too many flowers. Be that said, I think that many of us could be better stewards of God’s gifts and share more. Living in the most densely populated area of the country, I also believe that we can do FAR better planning for public transportation.
Be a wife/husband blessed with 1, 2, or 10 children, each one is a priceless work of art entrusted to them by God – precious from the very first moment of fertilization till natural death. A wife and husband are called to cooperate in God’s continuing work of creation! While each marital act is to be open to life, a wife and husband may utilize periodic continence for a serious reason.
Anecdotally, it gets reported that many churchgoing Catholics are not on board with what the Church proclaims about procreation. While it does not prove anything, family sizes have dramatically dropped since the 1960s. In my own experience, I it is rare to see families at Mass with 4 or more kids. Seeing those relatively larger families is no doubt a cause of joyful surprise! It does not take away from the truth that each and every child is a priceless work of art from God.
My wife and I are retirement age from two “helping” careers. What was probably unclear to both of us at the start of our work lives was that it was our own children upon which we could best impact the world!
God bless,
Joe
Hi Kyle,
Yes, I am on the opposite end of the spectrum from those advocating population control. While rejecting their heinous methods, we also need to be careful to not uncritically accept all their assumptions.
Humans are the greatest of God’s earthly creations and must come first. No cute puppies or kittens can ever take the place of a baby human, made in God’s image and likeness. As a dad, you certainly know that. Each and every human life from the first moment of fertilization till natural death is of incomparable value.
I am not sure what constitutes a “ton of kids” or “the worship of large families,” but God did tell us to go forth and multiply. The Church says that it is ok to utilize fertility awareness/natural family planning and periodic continence, when a wife and husband have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy.
Though Malthusian thinking has been around since the 18th century, we have not overrun the food supply or run out of space. Hunger needs to be addressed with a better distribution of food. One way to address conserving space is prioritizing public transit over highway expansion.
Joe Tevington
Hi Joe,
I completely agree that we shouldn’t accept the claims about population doom uncritically. There are definitely some crazy ones out there. The numbers show that there should be a level of concern though. When Jesus walked the earth, the world population was 200 million. It took until 1800 for the world population to reach 1 billion. Then by 1900, we were already up to 1.65 billion. And then by 2000, we were at 6.1 billion. Between 1900 and 2000, the population nearly quadrupled. If that were to happen again, we’d be at 22.6 billion by 2100 and then 83.5 billion by 2200. Those numbers are staggering, and likely unsupportable barring a miracle in technological development. That likely won’t happen because populations have a tendency to be self-limiting. In the past this was done by famine and disease. I would prefer that we use our God-given abilities to predict and avoid that scenario. This is the basic foundation of Malthusian thinking which does have some truth in it. There is a limit. Just because we haven’t hit it yet, does not mean it doesn’t exist.
And regarding puppies and kittens, the pope has made it clear that protecting God’s creation does matter. Ultimately, if we destroy the environment for kittens, puppies, and other animals, we will also be destroying it for ourselves. God intends us to be respectful of all of His creation. This includes our bodies as well as our environment.
And finally, there are numerous reasons to postpone or avoid pregnancy. Couples can be called to something other than parenthood even if they are fertile. Priests might be fertile, but they reject that fertility in choosing to become a priest over marriage. There are reasons couples can make the same choice.
I’m sure we won’t fully agree on this risk or the perfect path forward, but I do appreciate the discussion.
Kyle
I think the author and the people advocating for population control are on the two opposite ends of the spectrum. There are a few points that it seems the extremes don’t like to acknowledge.
1. There is a limit to the number of people that the earth can support. Resources are not unlimited, and neither is space.
2. We’re not currently close to that limit if current technology is properly utilized.
3. Human population growth is not without cost. As the human population grows, other parts of God’s creation dies.
4. We are paying those costs now as it is widely believed the next great extinction event has begun.
Couples should have the number of children that they want to have and feel comfortable having. In my opinion there is nothing holy about having a ton of kids just to have a ton of kids. A couple can use God’s gifts to praise him in many more ways than having children. There are costs to everything. Kids cost time, and that time could be used serving God in other ways. The Catholic church is officially comfortable with family planning as it should be. Now Catholic culture needs to change so that a couple with one child or no children isn’t looked at as less than a family with 4 or more kids (and I say this as a father of three considering a fourth). I see this as a major problem in Catholic culture today – the worship of large families. This isn’t anything against large families, but small families should be looked at as just as good and with just as much respect.
From a pure numbers standpoint, the family sizes of the past are unsustainable. Mortality rates have dropped dramatically in the past couple centuries. The amount of the drop across all ages really can’t be understated – and this includes child mortality. If a couple has 10 kids, the number expected to reach adulthood and reproduce is significantly higher today than it was 100 or 200 years ago. This (along with improved medical technology allowing a larger percentage of the population to conceive) leads to exponential growth, and that exponential growth can only go on for so long before it hits a limiter.
The author makes a good point about social security, but I don’t think the solution is a constantly growing population. That has it’s own problems. A stable population could be considered the ideal if the goal is to preserve God’s creation and provide for ourselves. And a stable population today can be achieved with far fewer children per couple than in the past. We have a range of possible paths, but I believe people should serve God in the way they are called to. If that means a large number of kids. Great. If that means no kids. Also great. Those are my two cents.
😅 Good point! Clearly, there are trips that are not well suited for private car or rail.
So right. I’ll bet if Amtrak laid out high speed rail from east coast to west many more would spend 12 hours to get from ocean to ocean than 6 hours on a kerosene guzzling jet.