Otherwise entitled: The illogical, uninformed rant

by: Jan Brazill ([email protected])

refuted by: NYJ ([email protected])

On October 12 [1999] we celebrated the arrival of the six-billionth person on this small planet. Much of the media used the event to educate listeners on the disastrous effects of such large numbers--poverty, starvation and ecological damage. Unnoticed, however, (or at least unremarked) was the Pope's complicity in this situation. No one noted the irony that the "Holy Father" is responsible for fathering millions of those births!

Yes, Ms. Brazill is right, much of media used the event to misinform their readership and viewers on the supposed "disastrous effects of overpopulation", an illogical myth that any person who even gives this issue some thought can see for the bunk that it is. However, it appears that Ms. Brazill buys right into this silly notion. Or, she is using it as simply a bully pulpit, and a means to badger and attack the Pope. Looking at a few of her other articles, most of which are contained at the Secular Web, it appears that the Pope is commonly a target of Ms. Brazill... one can only wonder why. At any rate, allow us to dispel a few of the myths that Ms. Brazill adheres to.

Amongst the disastrous effects of overpopulation that Ms. Brazill cites, "starvation" is the first that comes to mind. Now, it is true that there is starvation in the world, but it isn't because of overpopulation, let me tell you that. Let us look at some of the facts. In November 1993, the World Bank released a report called the "The World Food Output", the summary of which was that world food production has been steadily increasing for years-and at a rate greater than that of the growth in population. In addition, the report stated that less than one half of the worlds land, suitable for agriculture, is currently being used for such purposes. Which indicates that food product could, at the very least, double in size, which is a moot point, because the growth in food production is already outgaining the growth in world population. For more information that renders this argument of Ms. Brazill's null and void, check out an article by the Population Research Institute on the World Bank Report.

Dr. Colin Clark of Oxford University in England, in his book Starvation or Plenty, states that given agricultural methods common today, "the potential agricultural area of the world could provide for the consumption requirements, at contemporary maximum dietary standards of 53.1 billion people, or over ten times the present world population."

Starvation? Hardly, Ms. Brazill.

At this point, allow us to debunk another of the disastrous effects that Ms. Brazill claims is happening because of overpopulation... that of environmental damage. If one does the math, one can see that the world's population can easily fit into the state of Texas. I kid you not, folks... the state of Texas. Let us do the math, shall we?

Texas has a land mass of roughly 262,000 square miles.

U.N. population estimates place the world's population at roughly 6 billion people.

262,000 square miles equals 7,302,000,000,000 feet.

Per person, that equates to roughly 1,200 square feet.

That my friends, is a lot of living space. That my friends, leaves the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD for resources. That is also not including the possibility that people could build houses higher than one-storey, freeing up additional space in Texas itself. Now, I know that this doesn't take into account things like buildings for hospitals, jobs and schools, but I think the point is abundantly clear... there is not an overpopulation problem and resources are not in jeopardy. As I stated above, only half the available land suitable for argriculture is currently being utilized, which means it is still there, waiting to be used and is not in jeopardy. Now, we all hear about the shrinking rain forests and global warming, and it is true that we have a duty and debt to future societies to keep things as we found them, or to follow the Boy and Girl Scout motto's "Leave things in better condition than when we got them."

And guess what? The Catholic Church fully recognizes this, and has issued statements along these very lines.

On World Peace Day (January 1, 1990), the Pope issued a statement entitled "The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility". In this papal message, Pope John Paul II starts out with the following (underlined emphasis mine):

In our day, there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened not only by the arms race, regional conflicts and continued injustices among peoples and nations, but also by a lack of due respect for nature, by the plundering of natural resources and by an progressive decline in the quality of life. The sense of precariousness and insecurity that such a situation engenders is a seedbed for collective selfishness, disregard for others and dishonesty.

Faced with the widespread destruction of the environment, people everywhere are coming to understand that we cannot continue to use the goods of the earth as we have in the past. The public in general as well as political leaders are concerned abut this problem, and experts from a wide range of disciplines are studying its causes. Moreover, a new ecological awareness is beginning to emerge which, rather than being downplayed, ought to be encouraged to develop into concrete programmes and initiatives.

So Ms. Brazill, it is not that anyone "missed the fact" that the Pope was "responsible for" further burgeoning a supposedly already overwhelmed population. Rather, it was no one was foolish enough to make such a baseless claim. A claim that cannot be supported, unless of course, you have an axe to grind. Does the shoe fit, Ms. Brazill?

Well, perhaps not directly--even the Pope isn't that great! But the United Nations notes that at least 120 million women would avoid pregnancy if they had access to effective contraception. By opposing the use of contraceptives so adamantly, and influencing United Nations population conferences the way he does, John Paul II has indirectly forced those women to give birth, contributing to our burgeoning populations and all that entails.

One wonders where Ms. Brazill gets these "notes" of hers, and one wonders if she is selectively divulging information. Exactly where were these 120 million women found? Exactly how did the United Nations come to such a conclusion, and better yet, how does Ms. Brazill come to rest the blame on the shoulders of Pope John Paul II? At any rate, let us address the 120 million women. Where were they located? In industrialized nations? Well, if they were found in industrialized nations like the United States and most of Europe, birth control is readily available to these women. It is not as if the Pope stands in front of every pharmacy and steals birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms and spermicidal jelly from grocery bags as people walk out of these stores. The decision to use, or not to use, artificial methods of birth control is left entirely up to the individual considering their use. The Pope can advise on such matters, and he does (for reasons I will mention in a bit), but in the end he has no control in the matter. It just appears that Ms. Brazill has found, for her at least, a convenient scapegoat.

Now, what if these women are found in third-world nations? If this is the case perhaps Ms. Brazill, in her infinite wisdom, can tell us how these women will receive artificial birth control products. Should she go down the locale sub-Saharan pharmacy store (which doesn't exist)? With what money is she going to purchase these products with? Should she spend the little money she has on food, to pay for the pill? Ms. Brazill fails to realize that these people, as far as they are concerned, have different priorities. They are far more worried about if they're going to have a meal today, than if they're going to get pregnant or not. They're far more worried about if they're going to die today from some bacteria, parasitic or viral disease today than if they're going to get pregnant. They cannot afford artificial birth control and pharmaceutical companies are not going to give it out for free. Who's going to pay for it? You? Me? Perhaps Ms. Brazill would like to foot the bill? The United Nations? Shouldn't they be concerned more about buying and producing food to feed people (since we have already established that food supplies are NOT a problem)? Shouldn't they be more concerned about fighting AIDS and other diseases that are prevalent in the third world? Which, I might add, brings up an interesting issue. With all the United Nations "condom" programs in third world nations that suffer from HIV infection, it has done absolutely nothing to help stem the tide of HIV infection. Artificial birth control in these countries does not work. It doesn't work for HIV infection, it certainly won't help to reduce pregnancies. The only other option is to either force people to use artificial birth control (like thatis going to happen) or force people to be sterlizied. Is this the route that Ms. Brazill wishes to go? To sterilize populations of people? Who gets to make this decision? When do people have a say in what happens to their own bodies? Will the world have a quota (like China) of how many children they can have before they are sterilized? Is this the brave new world that Ms. Brazill see's in our future?

Rather, the intelligent thing to do, would be to teach people to practice abstinence. Something that the Church is a huge advocate of, and teaches throughout the world. If people practiced abstinence and upon marrying stayed in that monogamous relationship, cases of HIV would plummet. If you couple that marriage with Natural Family Planning, you would have lower divorce rates and happier marriages. Happy people perform better at work, which in turn would help business and the economy. Natural Family Planning, if employed properly helps to space children apart, resulting in a reduced number of pregnancies per woman per year (prolonged breast feeding has been scientifically proven to keep a women in an infertile state for up to a year after delivery). It also costs zero dollars to use and is more effective than the best artificial birth control found on the market. If such a plan was proposed by any institution other than the Catholic Church, one wonders how well it would be received. It has all the benefits Ms. Brazill claims to want, and it is infinitely cheaper than anything she could propose on her own. And at the same time, it has the added benefit of stopping the culture of death that the Catholic Church is committed to defeating. For all parties involved, it would be a win/win situation.

And lastly, while we're on the topic, I wonder if Ms. Brazill could elaborate on how the Pope could manipulate the United Nations. If Ms. Brazill didn'tknow, the Vatican only has a permanent observer status in the United Nations. While this gives the Vatican the ability to attend meetings and address themembers of those councils, it does not give them the power to vote on any issues. The way Ms. Brazill speaks, one would guess a conspiracy was afoot. Surely such paranoia is unwarranted, if not completely unfounded.

This vicarious participation in the procreation process may have underlying reasons. We should ask: why is this such a big issue with John Paul II? Why is he so opposed to easy, effective birth control? A man supposedly sensitive to the suffering of others, one who travels extensively and sees the results of runaway procreation, should want to reduce population, not contribute to an increase.

Why is artificial birth control such a "big issue" with Pope John Paul II, and the Catholic Church? Probably because the problems I illustrated above are just a small amount of the problem that the Church recognized would happen if artificial birth control became widespread.

On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which was on the topic "On the Regulation of Birth". In this encyclical, Pope Paul VI listed a number of reasons that artificial birth control would be detrimental to the world populace.

17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men -- especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point -- have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be more efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

So first Ms. Brazill rails against the Church because it does not condone birth control. Then Ms. Brazill rails against the Church for forcing men to remain celibate. Need I remind Ms. Brazill that if these priest married, they would have children, and you are here trying to push a view to reduce the world's population. Am I the only one who saw the irony and humour in you unintentionally scuttling your argument to try to prove one last point? Atheists often brag about how they came across their decision to reject religion based on logic. However, in at least this particular case, it appears that once the atheistic state was acheived, logic ceased to be employed, or at least temporarily suspended while this article was being written.

At any rate, since we are now playing arm-chair psychologist, allow me to consider Ms. Brazill's comments on the "unnatural celibate state". Need I remind Ms. Brazill that sex has derived for one main purpose in life. That is to reproduce. A majority of animals only have sex while the female is fertile. This means that a majority of the time, they remain celibate. A majority of animals do not have sex for pleasure, they have sex when stimulated by a female's hormones, which means the female is fertile, which means offspring will be the result. In addition, more often than not, these animals are not monogamous. In male dominated animal societies, a male will have sex with multiple female partners, with the intention of getting them all pregnant. Does the feminist side of Ms. Brazill account for the fact that a majority of life is not monogamous and that the female is subservient to the male? Also, does the liberal side of Ms. Brazill acknowledge that homosexuality is also an unnatural state? The primary use for sex is to procreate (as had been already mentioned). Procreation can only occur (in the case of single-sexed organisms) between a male and a female. Not male to male, nor female to female. Hence homosexual relations are "dead end" relationships, not conducive to creating offspring at all. I guess this would please Ms. Brazill to no end, it's a sure-fire way to decrease the population, alas it is not natural, and Ms. Brazill is obviously concerned with natural processes. Or is she simply being hypocritical?

Finally, the crown jewel for humanity is it's ability to overcome nature and develop it and shape it to man's own purpose. If a man or woman is able to overcome the urge to procreate, should they not be allowed to continue to do so? Are men and women allowed this freedom of thought? Ms. Brazill is, herself, a member of the Freethinkers of Colorado Springs, so it is ironic that Ms. Brazill would not agree that these men and women should be allowed their own right to remain celibate if they choose to do so.

Of course, this rebuttal would not be complete without some Scripture, so let me produce the following to shed light on why men and women in the Catholic Church take vows of celibacy (and keep them):

Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

Perhaps the "Holy Father," denied the right to procreate, has sublimated his desires by this "vicarious" fathering. Then, like other Deadbeat Dads, he blithely moves on, oblivious to the suffering of those he causes to be born.

I must admit, Ms. Brazill has a very large axe to grind with the Pope, or so it seems. She has employed plenty of polemic in blowing out of proportion a myth that is completely unfounded and is typically only presented by people with an eugenic and racist agenda. They issue forth opinion and shoddy science that a small amount of effort will divulge to be completely erroneous. Perhaps this is why Ms. Brazill does not provide any support for her positions, because this would lead one to her sources and would reveal just how flimsy they are. Ms. Brazill would rather play "arm-chair pop-psychologist" and employ some "Freudian principles" to appeal to the emotions of her readers. Next thing we know she'll be claiming that the Pope wants to rule the world because he probably has a small penis. Additionally, as an atheist, this argument should be an utter embarrassment. For the atheist, when attempting to convince other atheists, one would expect that they would try to employ logic rather than appeal to emotions. Unfortunately, this diatribe of Ms. Brazill's is nothing BUT emotion. There isn't a single fact contained within the entire commentary. Even more ironic is the fact that the only facts are contained in the Christian rebuttal, a "population" of which I am sure Ms. Brazill would relegate to the classification of "imbecile"... a prime candidate for "programs designed to help decrease the worlds feeble-mindedness".

Bravo, Ms. Brazill! You have exposed yourself as the close-minded, emotional and illogical person you are. No one could have done it any better than you did.

Just something to think about on our way to Seven Billion!

Thought about, and left with the conclusion that everything Ms. Brazill has had to say is completely absurd.

However, I guess the old adage is true: "Free Thought - You get what you pay for."