The culture of the pill & breast cancer

Spotlight: Jenn Giroux - Fighting the Culture of the Pill

 

For Jenn Giroux, celebrating large families is part of an effort to save parents from the regret they might experience later in life in the absence of children that might have been - had it not been for the pill.

By Kathleen Gilbert

CINCINNATI, Ohio, October 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Most people who run into Jenn Giroux probably wouldn't guess that she is mother to nine children.

 A warm, youthful registered nurse with an energetic smile, Giroux, 48, is a remarkable intersection of proud mother and dynamic pro-life leader. As executive director of HLI America, she counters the agenda of the likes of abortion giant Planned Parenthood; however, abortion is not the end of the story for Giroux. As founder of the Association of Large Families (AFLA), she's also dedicated to reaching out to "planned parents," a much larger group of people who are heir to the idea that having more than a few children is not only burdensome, but even dangerous and unnatural.

This mentality, she said in a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews.com, is more at the root of our culture's problem than even the abortion industry – and it is a root cause that conservatives need to come to terms with.

 "We're really taking on the 'planned parenthood' mentality ... that less children is better," said Giroux.

 A nurse with 24 years' experience, she said that she was often struck during her time in the health care industry by women's negative attitude when asked whether they were pregnant. "It reflected how America has really lost sight of our greatest resource, which is our children," she said. Giroux blames the mentality that blossomed in the 1960s and 70s that says that families should be limited to allow women to pursue careers.

The idea has penetrated so deeply that doctors now even suggest that having a large family, far from the natural course of married life, is a risk to a woman's health. "Your doctors nowadays are going to tell you, 'Don't have any more than two, your body can't take it. You don't want to do that, take the Pill,'" she said. "I hear this consistently."

 The Silent Mourning

 However, said the nurse, she has also seen the other end of the journey - the one no one talks about.

 "I discovered in my experience that ... women over fifty expressed time and time again to me their post-contraceptive regret," said Giroux. "And what they're realizing now is that they had their two children, they put them in daycare, and their children are now grown and moved away, and they wish they had more children - or they sincerely mourn and regret the children they willingly prevented."

Parents later in life not only suffer remorse, she said, but they and their families often end up experiencing the loss quite tangibly. "I witnessed only children at the bedside of their dying parents with no support around them from siblings, because they don't exist," she said. She noted also the "terrible, burning regret" and "mourning" she's seen from sterilized individuals, who can be left barren even after reversing the procedure.

While she is dedicated to exposing the tragic effects of smothering natural fertility, Giroux said she and former Human Life International President, Rev. Tom Euteneuer, came up with AFLA to show the positive "flip side" of that concern. "It is an effort to show people the beauty of having large families," she said.

Modern society, she said, has been left in the dark about what large families are really like. When large families are mentioned in the national media, "it is usually to mock them" - but in truth, she notes, large families are the "physical and spiritual backbone of America."

 ALFA exists "not to judge people at all," she said, "but more to make sure that our daughters and granddaughters do not buy into the same lies that were fed to women our age."

 "What we really basically are asking is that families that are open to God's plan for marriage, love and children and accepting the gifts he sends their family instead of limiting their families through artificial means."

"The Catholic Issue"

According to Giroux, the fight to get their message out has not exactly been easy.

 "I have been called a lunatic more times than I care to remember," she said, relating struggles she has had to find a foothold even among top conservative and pro-life circles.

 Despite some discouraging results, Giroux said she feels the movement is making progress against one of the biggest impediments: the idea that opposing contraceptives is just a "Catholic issue." More and more research, she says, is pointing to the devastating repercussions of the contraceptive culture on women's health.

Giroux has teamed up with Angela Lanfranchi, M.D. of the Breast Cancer Institute to expose the link between contraceptive use and breast cancer. For example, she says research has suggested women on the Pill within five years of having their first baby are at 50% increased risk for breast cancer.

"You don't always get people who want to hear the spiritual side," said Giroux. She pointed out that women in their 30s have begun succumbing to breast cancer even though it used to be "a post-menopausal woman's disease" - a change that she said is "directly tied to hormonal contraception and abortion." "The pathophysiological development of the breast cancer tissue ... has nothing to do with anybody's beliefs."

"It is time for the pro-life movement to wake up and be bold enough to say, you know what, you're damaging our children, you're damaging women, and we're not going to stand for it anymore," she said. "It's not a Catholic issue anymore, it's a women's health issue now."

In addition to the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B, which pro-lifers have constantly warned can kill a newly-conceived embryo, Giroux said that even the hormonal birth control pill may inadvertently be causing the death of countless tiny lives. She notes that scientists have found that during in-vitro fertilization, embryos often died after they could not receive nutrients from a uterine lining thinned by regular hormonal contraceptive use.

One day, she said, public opinion will recognize what damage the pill has done to women both physically and spiritually - a day she thinks is close at hand. She compared the contraceptive industry to the cigarette industry, which was also once virtually free of regulation.

"It took six decades to finally have the lawsuits and the legal liabilities catch up to the sales of cigarettes," she said. "This is now the sixth decade of pill use. I believe this is the decade the pill and hormonal contraceptives, and the physical damage it has done to women's health, is going to catch up also with the billions of dollars that are made in profit."

 Click here to visit AFLA's Web site, FourorMore.org. URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10100109.htm

 

73,405 views 49 replies
Reply #1 Top

 

There is definitely a link between artificial birth control and breast cancer, something, I might add, that studies have shown since 1980 but the culture has suppressed.

Reply #2 Top

I was on BC for twenty years for two reasons.  First, I didn't want lots of babies (didn't know when I started that naturally it wouldn't have happened anyway).  Yeah I read about the women with regret for only having one or two, but I KNOW two was my limit...more than some days.

Second, without the pill, I could go a year without a visit from Aunt Flow (the revelation).  If I waited for my cycle, I'd NEVER HAD KIDS AT ALL.  I needed it to get things going so I could get pregnant.

My hormones were wacky.  Now, since I know my Breast cancer is over 90% positive for estrogen and progesterone, I have to wonder....did my body "know" there was an environment inside me which estrogen would "grow" cancer?  Did it stop producing it to protect me? 

 I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy Lula.  I think we're given the information as its made available.  For instance, estrogen was prescribed to many women (and still is) postmenopausal, for hot flashes, dry skin, etc. 

As research results come in we're discovering...ooops, it really increases the risk of certain types of cancer.  Risks many women are still willing to take.

Research takes time.  I'm going to be part of a clinical study that will last 15 years!!  Meanwhile, we do the best with the information we have.  Even if we find out later, that information was totally wrong and caused more harm than help.

 

Reply #3 Top

Yeah I read about the women with regret for only having one or two,

I agree with that assessment.  I think I got caught up in the culture  telling me that I might not be able to provide well enough for my children if I had too many or that I wouldn't be able to handle the added pressure and time it takes to rear more children.  At the time we (mostly me) made the decision to stop after my third son I was sleep deprived and very self-centered.  Looking back, that was a big decision at 24 to make.    There is something quite beautiful about having large families.  When I started out thinking about having a family someday my dream was to have at least 10...yes...ten children.  I wimped out after David was born.  He was more than a handful at the time.  I feel sometimes that I missed the boat and didn't do what God had originally put on my heart to do. 

I have to wonder....did my body "know" there was an environment inside me which estrogen would "grow" cancer? Did it stop producing it to protect me?

interesting Tonya.  Makes me think of the barren women in scripture.  I especially think of barren Rachel who said to her husband "give me children least I die" and after having her second child she did die before her time.  There's a ring of not being content in there somewhere with what God had given her already. 

Cathy, my friend now fighting breast cancer,  believes it was the BC pill she took that put her where she is today.  She took it when she was peri-menopausal to help regulate her cycle as well.    Her breast cancer is also estrogen driven. 

I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy Lula.

I think Satan is behind this definitely. It's a spiritual war.  Children are a blessing from God.  He said blessed are those whose quiver is full of them.    If the Christians had large families like scripture affirms  bringing them up with biblical morals and integrity then most likely we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.  Instead for years it's been the criminals and the welfare seeking population that seems to have the larger families.    I'm amazed to listen to the kids in my SS class (bussed in)  with 12 brothers and sisters...one said he had 16 siblings  and didn't even know them all.  One father is in prison and the other families are all broken up and disbursed. 

 

 

 

Reply #4 Top

So tell me, do you all really want to hit the carrying capacity of the planet in your life time (if we haven't already hit it)? If so, do you support returning to the pre industrial age in order to ensure enough food? Otherwise, you'll need to explain what natural predators humans have that are common enough to warrant having dozens of children. Or do you expect that we will have a war with china or india in the next 50 years? Perhaps if we colonize another planet or the moon and have cheap transport and excess food available you'd have a case for larger families, but I cannot see the point in placing unneccessary strain on the infrastructure and food production facilities at this time.

Of course if you want to have load of kids I don't care, but I suggest looking at india and china for why it's a bad idea. Eventually we will hit the maximum yield for food grown in the ground without genetic modification, and at that point it's either invade nearby countries for more growing space or just ignore the fanatics and build massive farming towers that utilize aeroponics and genetically modified crops.

Reply #5 Top

Makes me think of the barren women in scripture.

Children are a blessing from God.

Given my chemistry, then my children are blessings I "stole" from God...because without the pill, my body would never have produced enough estrogen to have them.

This is a tricky area because essentially what we're saying is, while God gave us the ability (DRS/Scientists) to create medicine and drugs which can help us conceive,  (like artificial hormones that allow women to conceive).....maybe we should not use them because it might go against His will for us. 

Except I don't believe that.  I don't believe I can steal God's blessing (which children are) anymore than I can steal His power.  There are plenty of women who do way more drastic measures than taking the pill to get pregnant.  Some are successful.  Some aren't.  In the end though, He knits a child in the mother's womb, and no amount of science can force God to get a knittin' against His will.

Reply #6 Top

Oh brother...

I agree with doom bringer, any risks contraceptives pose is more than mitigated by the slowed population growth in areas were they are used. I hate to say it, but breast cancer is the lesser evil compared to the entire world starving. Now if they were trying to bring awareness about these things (assuming they are true) to produce better contraceptives that would be understandable, but I suppose that wouldn't suit the bias of this article.

Reply #7 Top

Given my chemistry, then my children are blessings I "stole" from God...because without the pill, my body would never have produced enough estrogen to have them.

but maybe you're a modern Rachel then?  As far as God allowing us modern medicine and God knits the babies in our womb..true but medicine is used for good and bad.  Also God sometimes gives us what we desire even though he knows it's not in our best interest.  You know..be careful what you wish for sort of thing.  Your children are a blessing, that doesn't change that.  But maybe he had another plan for you?   Same goes for me with my thinking I should not have  forced the issue in saying no like you forced the issue by saying yes. 

Except I don't believe that. I don't believe I can steal God's blessing (which children are)

I think of Hezekiah asking for longer life.  It didn't turn out so good in the end.   I can also think about Abraham and Sarah..they also, using your terminology, "stole" from God" and look what happened.   I think about God giving Israel King Saul because they wanted a King over them and that proved to be a disaster.  He gave them what they wanted even thoug he made it clear it wasn't the best. 

 

 

Reply #8 Top

But maybe he had another plan for you? Same goes for me with my thinking I should not have forced the issue in saying no like you forced the issue by saying yes.

Technically I didn't force the issue.  At the time I didn't know it was an issue.  I started the pill to keep from getting pregnant, and later learned a side effect was it balanced the estrogen in my body which allowed me to get pregnant.

This is too circular an argument, and the truth is, you won't know this side of heaven.  It's like a woman trying to figure out what gave her breast cancer.  But there are so many variables, including genetics, and so many unknowns, you can't ever know for sure.  And the guessing and pondering only serves to drive you crazy.  And in the end, serves no real purpose.

I made my decisions.  I'm good with them. 

Ultimately we live in a fallen world.  I think we have to make the best of what we know.  And what we know certainly changes (hopefully changes!) with time.

Reply #9 Top

I was on BC for twenty years for two reasons. First, I didn't want lots of babies (didn't know when I started that naturally it wouldn't have happened anyway). Yeah I read about the women with regret for only having one or two, but I KNOW two was my limit...more than some days.

Second, without the pill, I could go a year without a visit from Aunt Flow (the revelation). If I waited for my cycle, I'd NEVER HAD KIDS AT ALL. I needed it to get things going so I could get pregnant.

TOVA,

Your observation that you are the youngest one (by 20 years + or - ) in your BC center as well as your question, "I'm not crying why me, because WHY NOT ME?" got me thinking. If we shorten the question to "why", then we've see the answer is the use of birth control at least in some cases.

 The use of birth control explains why some young women are getting breast cancer.

Now it's true that some women are put on birth control for medical reasons, while the majority of them use it to prevent pregnancy.

................

I don't think there is some sort of conspiracy Lula. I think we're given the information as its made available.

This is where we disagree although conspiracy may be a strong word for it. But we were definitely not given the info as it's made possible. That's why I cited the 1980 study. The media, Planned Parenthood, the government educrats pushing contraceptive sex ed don't want the public to know the link between the use of birth control with breast cancer.  

Cancer literature doesn't list the use of birth control as one of the causes of cancers. Hereditary and genetic risk, early onset of menstrual periods (before age 12), Late menopause (after 55), no pregnancies or first pregnancy after the age of 30, not breastfeeding and post menopausal hormone therapy are the most common risk factors listed.  

 

  

   

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #10 Top

 

BTW,

Just wondering....Does the info that comes with birth control warn that it could cause certain cancers?

As research results come in we're discovering...ooops, it really increases the risk of certain types of cancer. Risks many women are still willing to take.

Here's an excerpt from an article in 2006!!!

Published in the journal of the Mayo Clinic this month, the key article examines findings from a careful analysis of international studies conducted between 1980-2002. Entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, the article finds an increased risk for breast cancer of 44 percent, in pre-menopausal women who took or were taking oral contraceptives prior to their first pregnancy, compared to women who had not used oral contraceptives.

 

 Of the twenty-three studies examined, twenty-one showed an increased risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use prior to a first pregnancy in pre-menopausal women. The combined results showed an over-all risk increase for breast cancer of 44 percent.

Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, lead author of the report, said his entire team believes the standards of informed consent demand that women must be warned of the potential risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer before they take oral contraceptives, in a press release from the Polycarp Research Institute.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in US women between age 20 and 59, the report stated, pointing out the breast cancer rates have risen steadily over the past four decades worldwide, and have risen even faster in developed countries, especially among young women.

The study re-enforces the 2005 classification of oral contraception as a Type 1 carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) to humans by the International Agency for Cancer Research.

Researchers have increasingly warned about an additional link between breast cancer and abortion, found to be significant in multiple studies throughout the world. The abortion/breast cancer link has been consistently ignored or denied, however, by leading cancer institutes in Europe and North America.

To view the article:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8110/8110a1.pdf

 See Polycarp Research Institute press release with graphs:
http://www.polycarp.org/statement_mayo_clinic_article.htm
 
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Breast Cancer Incidence is Highly Correlated with Abortion Incidence – Researcher
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/05081005.html

........................... 

As research results come in we're discovering...ooops, it really increases the risk of certain types of cancer. Risks many women are still willing to take.

This brings me to another bone of contention. OK...Women...adult women can make their own decisions. But  now we have girls as young as 11 years old being put on birth control. That really gets my dander up. I think the future is going to be grim...grimmer...we are going to see a lot more young women in their 30's get breast cancer as a result.

 

 

Reply #11 Top

Research takes time. I'm going to be part of a clinical study that will last 15 years!!

Great. If you don't mind my asking, how did that come about?

Reply #12 Top

I feel sometimes that I missed the boat and didn't do what God had originally put on my heart to do.

Ditto here KFC.

I think Satan is behind this definitely. It's a spiritual war.

Yes, I'm in agreement here as well. Most definitely .....Satan is most delighted with killing the innocents.

Birth control is the beginning of a slippery slope....to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Any country that approves these is doomed.

As far as God allowing us modern medicine and God knits the babies in our womb..true but medicine is used for good and bad. Also God sometimes gives us what we desire even though he knows it's not in our best interest. You know..be careful what you wish for sort of thing. Your children are a blessing, that doesn't change that. But maybe he had another plan for you? Same goes for me with my thinking I should not have forced the issue in saying no like you forced the issue by saying yes.

Except I don't believe that. I don't believe I can steal God's blessing (which children are)

I think of Hezekiah asking for longer life. It didn't turn out so good in the end. I can also think about Abraham and Sarah..they also, using your terminology, "stole" from God" and look what happened. I think about God giving Israel King Saul because they wanted a King over them and that proved to be a disaster. He gave them what they wanted even thoug he made it clear it wasn't the best.

 Very insightful answer.

I'll add that God doesn't intend physical evils for their own sake and He does not delight in the misery and suffering of His children. He permits them because in His divine plan they will further the general good or man's good. St.Augustine said, "He is powerful and good enough to make good even out of evil." 

 

 

 

Reply #13 Top

If we shorten the question to "why", then we've see the answer is the use of birth control at least in some cases.

That statement could be said for a multitude of environmental factors.

There are many things that play into cancer, not just one thing.  Personal genetics, immunity, environmental exposure to carcinogens, diet, and exercise to name a few.  Which is why some women get breast cancer, and some don't.

I would be as suspicious of the asbestos I worked in while in the AF, as well as possible residual radiation from working around nukes.  Or how about those times I used my bare hand to spread insecticide in my flower beds?  Each and every one of those things could have been a catalyst.

I understand the impulse to look at something to blame.  But in the scope of my life, there are too many variables to say one single thing "caused" my BC.

 

Reply #14 Top

Great. If you don't mind my asking, how did that come about?

I was going to ask if there were any studies going on, (one of the questions on my list), but the chemo Oncologist actually told me about it before I could ask.

The details are below....but if a woman isn't HER2+, it's all just BLAH BLAH BLAH, so feel free to skip it.

 Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization Study

It is a Phase III study of randomized, multi-centre, open label, effects of Adjuvant Lapatinib, Trastuzumab, their sequence and combination in patients with HER2 + breast cancer.  They hope to discover:

1.  What effects (good and bad) the study treatment has on me and my cancer.

2.  Compare 4 different study treatment combinations to see if one is better.

3.  Find out what effects this study has on quality of life.

Essentially Lapatinib is given to Stage IV Her2+ (METS) BC with some success.  It has "less" side effects than Trastuzumab so they want to discover if it will perform well in early stage BC by itself, in addition to T, or first T then a break, then L.

The study is randomized, so I don't know what I'll get yet.  But there are four arms  I will get randomized to one of the following:

Group 1:  The standard treatment-Trastuzumab for one year

Group 2:  Lapatinib alone for one year

Group 3:  Tras for 18 weeks followed by a 6 week break, then Lap. for 28 weeks

Group 4:  Tras and Lap together for one year.

The only drawback I can see is sometimes HER2+ cancer builds a resistance to Tras.  In that case they can give Lap.  But if I draw the arm with both, and the cancer develops a resistance to both, and my BC comes back....well, I won't really have any options.

Approximately 4000 people in the US and 8400 worldwide will take part in this study.  It lasts for 15 years.

 

 

Reply #15 Top

If we shorten the question to "why", then we've see the answer is the use of birth control at least in some cases.

That statement could be said for a multitude of environmental factors.

There are many things that play into cancer, not just one thing. Personal genetics, immunity, environmental exposure to carcinogens, diet, and exercise to name a few. Which is why some women get breast cancer, and some don't.

I would be as suspicious of the asbestos I worked in while in the AF, as well as possible residual radiation from working around nukes. Or how about those times I used my bare hand to spread insecticide in my flower beds? Each and every one of those things could have been a catalyst.

Yes, for sure...all of these are considered risk factors. From what I've read, stress is as well.  

I understand the impulse to look at something to blame. But in the scope of my life, there are too many variables to say one single thing "caused" my BC.

Ya..the why question is always lurking. One woman told me she definitely knows why.....that it was stress from her husband leaving her with small children to raise that caused her breast cancer now spread to her lungs. That was when she was 45 and now she's 68 with 4 grandchildren. Chemo and a positive attitude and love for her children has kept the Angel of death away.  

Anyway, for this article, I was pointing to those breast cancer risk factors that have something to do with estrogen as birth control does.

But I think you are right...There are too many variables to say one single thing causes Breast Cancer.

 

Reply #16 Top

DOOMBRINGER90

So tell me, do you all really want to hit the carrying capacity of the planet in your life time (if we haven't already hit it)?

The "carrying capacity" of the earth is the bedrock scare perpetuated by the population control movement.  For 25 or 30 years now, we've been hearing and teaching that we have a world problem, an environmental crisis of horrific proportion, created by world over population. And evidently you bought into it.

But where is the solid evidence that supports the United Nation's monolithic dogma that a "population bomb" threatens the life of all humanity and exploits the earth?

I think the population controller's forecasts of harm from population growth have been proven groundless.

.......................

Of course if you want to have load of kids I don't care, but I suggest looking at india and china for why it's a bad idea.

  As far as population growth polluting the environment, causing poverty, famine, etc., in 2001, the UN reported that overall, "population growth appears to be much less important as a driving force" than "economic growth and technology". On poverty, British scholar Robert Whelan from Family of the AMericas, wrote, 

"The idea that population growth is responsible for poverty, famines, and unemployment has now been so discreditied among honest scholars as to be hardly tenable....Poverty and prosperity are the results of economic structures and are not caused by high or low birth rates. For example, Bangladesh has a population density of over 600 people per square kilometer. But then Hong Kong has about 5000 people p/s/k and is a great center of wealth creation. So why is Bangladesh poor while Hong Kong is rich? It can't be overpopulation.

In developed countries with social security plans, 5 to 6 young workers are needed to support each retiree. In poorer countries and those without government retirement plans, including Communist ones like China, the only social security program is to have enough children to support you in your old age.

The report states famine can come when "people have inadequate physical and or economic access to food as a result of poverty, political instability, economic inefficiency, and social inequality, " not just becasue there are too many people.

Human rights do not exist in Communist China. Since 1979, The United Nations Population Fund, has supported the one-child policy in China. Since 1998, documentation from within China proves Chinese quota driven family planning programs are still being carried out by means of a variety of coercive measures such as crippling fines, arrest and imprisonment of family members, destruction of property, and of bodily coercion of IUD insertions, forced sterilization and abortion.

The notion that people are somehow social economic nuisances is a pernicious one, predisposing governments to treat their own citizens as a form of pestilence. Instead of trying to lift their poor out of poverty, governments instead try to reduce their numbers. Authentic economic development is neglected, human rights abuses abound, and everyone's freedoms are put at risk." ....Steven W. Mosher, President of Population Research Institute.

And you must know the coercive population control policy is not limited to China. Becasue of disengenuous radical feminism, almost everywhere in the world women and young girls, particularly poor ones, are at grave rish of coercive population programs. These women and young girls are given artificial birth control products and being sterilized and they are suffering and devestated from the effects of these.

Reply #17 Top

GoaFan77

Oh brother...

I agree with doom bringer, any risks contraceptives pose is more than mitigated by the slowed population growth in areas were they are used.

So you are arguing that the "ends justify the means"? I'm in the camp that says "No way". We must treasure people, not living space as our most important resource.

When man rejects Almighty God and His laws and decides for himself who lives and dies, the consequences are fatal. God is merciful, but Mother Nature is not. Death of babies means death of cultures and death of nations. Today, demographic reports show that the "overpopulation" scare is over. Nations see their populations declining, some dying becasue they are at below replacement fertility level. It's under population, not over population that is the dilemna facing the world today. 83 countries are thought to be below replacement fertility level.

  

I hate to say it, but breast cancer is the lesser evil compared to the entire world starving.

The entire world starving? Again, this scare comes from population controllers, but where is the evidence that the world is running out of resources and we're going to plunge into famine?

  

 

 

 

Reply #18 Top

The details are below....but if a woman isn't HER2+,

Wow. You are amazingly good at how much you already know about all these things.

These studies are very good and necessary and you'll be a very valuable contributor. Tova, I pray that God blesses you with strength and perseverance as you work through this time of your life.   

 

Reply #19 Top

 

Tova, I pray that God blesses you with strength and perseverance as you work through this time of your life.

Thank you Lula.  I appreciate your prayers very much.  And FYI it is mutual.  :)

Reply #20 Top

See lula, this is why ignoring science is bad for you. I have never said in any of my posts that hitting the carrying capacity is a "bad thing". But when you do hit it, if you do not have any natural predators you have to reduce the birth rate to roughly match the death rate. Keep in mind that every herbivorous terrestrial life form's carrying capacity is dependent on every other lifeform in the area. If you run out of plants the herbivores die off, resulting in a drastic decrease in population for omnivores and carnivores. With the majority of the meat eaters gone, the herbivores make a drastic uptick finishing off the last of the plantlife, resulting in the final dieoff of all terrestrial life. Large aquatic life would probably die off shortly after the initial herbivore die off, as the only source of food that still increases energy directly from the sun in a complete food chain would be fish and whales, so humans will hunt them to extinction to supplement wolves and what have you. eventually life will re-evolve from the seas(or get plopped back down by the magic invisible floating energy being in the sky)

once we hit the carrying capacity there's only a few options to ensure the survival of humanity, and given the beliefs I pick up from your posts, you won't like any of them.

1) colonize space(which opens up a whole new can of worms with either terraformation or geneticly engineering humans and food animals to survive in a non earth environment)

2) kill all terrestrial animals and convert all of humanaty to veganism(even then we'll still need one of the other options)

3) convert all of humanity to semi cannibalism(same note as option 2)

4) wage a series of wars(far more likely given the mindset of most people, And will likely have the result of reducing the carrying capacity of the planet)

5) ignore the anti-GM nutjobs and heavily modify the food supply for higher yields on poorer soil(at least until option 1 is economicly viable)

 The idea that population growth is responsible for poverty, famines, and unemployment has now been so discreditied among honest scholars as to be hardly tenable....Poverty and prosperity are the results of economic structures and are not caused by high or low birth rates.

Poverty is also directly caused by saturating the job market which having tons of people does.

For example, Bangladesh has a population density of over 600 people per square kilometer. But then Hong Kong has about 5000 people p/s/k and is a great center of wealth creation. So why is Bangladesh poor while Hong Kong is rich?

On the other hand, can you explain how a nation that formed 40 years ago in what is arguably the backwater of India can possibly be compared to a port town that has existed in one of the richer nations for over 170? Additionally there is a critical mass of people and natural resources required to begin a buildup of economy. As it is Bangladesh is part of the "next eleven", which means that their economy is one that may become a major player in the later 21st century.

If you take Hong Kong and add it to the rest of mainland china (which you really should do if you're going to compare to another country) you find out that the population density is a tenth that of Bangladesh, but I suppose that if you didn't take the highest richer population density in the world and compare it to one of the poorer population densities in the world you couldnt make your point. By the logic used in this bit, the US should be a third world country because our population density is about 1/100th the density of Hong Kong.

 Instead of trying to lift their poor out of poverty, governments instead try to reduce their numbers.
Did this make any sense at all to you when you copied it? One would assume that lifting the poor out of poverty would reduce their numbers, but this is wacky twisted logic world where uplifting the poor doesn't make less poor people...

We must treasure people, not living space as our most important resource.

Sure treasuring people is all well and good, and I don't really care about living space, but tell me oh mighty master of twisted logic, when every square inch of the livable surface of the world is filled with a person and their house, where we are getting our food from? You've already spoken out against genetic engineering so no high yield crops to be planted in what little garden space you might be able to find on the roof of your building, and there is no meat anymore because meat animals take up far more low yield crops and space than is available, and the fish have all been fished to death to attempt to support the population. Or are we just going to all be eating soylent green?

 but where is the evidence that the world is running out of resources and we're going to plunge into famine?
Where is the evidence that the world has infinite resources? As you said earlier
people have inadequate physical and or economic access to food as a result of poverty, political instability, economic inefficiency, and social inequality
What happens when more people want the same amount of food? The price of food goes up, reducing the number of people who can buy that food, reducing the number of people who can eat, increasing the number of starvation deaths. and as I said earlier, eventually we will hit the maximum yield for non and lightly GM food. Hell, as it is, lightly GM food is the only reason the planet has the ability to hold all 7 billion of us.

Reply #21 Top

once we hit the carrying capacity there's only a few options to ensure the survival of humanity, and given the beliefs I pick up from your posts, you won't like any of them.

1) colonize space(which opens up a whole new can of worms with either terraformation or geneticly engineering humans and food animals to survive in a non earth environment)

2) kill all terrestrial animals and convert all of humanaty to veganism(even then we'll still need one of the other options)

3) convert all of humanity to semi cannibalism(same note as option 2)

4) wage a series of wars(far more likely given the mindset of most people, And will likely have the result of reducing the carrying capacity of the planet)

5) ignore the anti-GM nutjobs and heavily modify the food supply for higher yields on poorer soil(at least until option 1 is economicly viable)

There is a little deception there.  You are asking her to pick one.  The truth is that no one picks one.  With the exception of technical ones (that only the advancement of science can bring about), the dynamics of animal life takes care of the rest.  It does not have to be some master plan (as many in the green and eugenics movement advocate). Indeed, even the technical ones are part of the dynamics as the incessant quest for knowledge drives man to overcome those technical limitations.

There is a popular misconception that man is destroying nature.  The error is that man is not a part of nature.  Man is indeed a very integral part of nature and bound by its laws.  The constant drumbeat of doom and gloom that has been going on since the turn of the 19th century about the inevitable saturation of man upon the planet has never occurred because of that fallacy.  it will not occur, not due to any massive planning, but due to nature itself.

The population of the planet today far outstrips the carrying capacity of the planet 100 years ago.  The difference is in what nature gave man to compete with the other animals.  We do not have speed, strength, claws, teeth, horns, scales, leathery or bony carapaces.  Indeed, homosapiens have nothing in which to compete with other life on this planet except one thing.  Their brains.  And it is that brain that has not only increased the carrying capacity of the planet far beyond what it was 100 years ago, but will continue to do so far into the future.

It is not about "unlimited" but about maximizing the capacity at the limits, which has been occurring since man began walking erect.  And when man nears or meets the carrying capacity of the planet in one section, mother nature - of which man is a part - compensates.

There were mass starvations in the past when the population was much smaller.  Man had not developed the means to adequately increase the carrying capacity in those areas yet.

The abomination of man is that when he thinks himself an enemy of or outside of nature, that he then decides to take matters into his own hands and correct problems that do not exist.  or just for evil sport and gain, he wars.  But both supposed solutions are an anathema to nature (and she retaliates in kind).

Western society has ceased to grow in numbers.  The dynamics of nature has made the animals desire fulfillment over procreation.  With the exception of China (which was ineffective and counter productive), there has been no mass plan by the animal man to control that.  it naturally occurred.  As it will in all areas of the planet once the fight for subsistence ends.  But that can only happen when wars end (which is kind of a revenge of nature on man as well) and eugenicists/malthusians fulfill their destiny with their own destruction.

Reply #22 Top

DoomBringer90

So tell me, do you all really want to hit the carrying capacity of the planet in your life time (if we haven't already hit it)? If so, do you support returning to the pre industrial age in order to ensure enough food?

See lula, this is why ignoring science is bad for you.

 Was the "carrying capacity", overpopulation scare based on true science? If so, answer my question:

But where is the solid evidence that supports the United Nation's monolithic dogma that a "population bomb" threatens the life of all humanity and exploits the earth?

I say no way.  I don't believe the overpopulation "carrying capacity" of the earth argument for a New York minute. Social scientists decided years ago the world would suffocate from its own people. They told us we would run out of water, food and natural resources...that we're heading for certain cataclysm..if we didn't reach "zero population" growth, we'd face extinction!  

I'll repeat: the population controller's forecasts of harm from population growth have been proven groundless. They never really made their case.

How does the UN know how many people the world can hold? It seems to me that the world still has plenty of empty space.  

 

 

Reply #23 Top

I have never said in any of my posts that hitting the carrying capacity is a "bad thing".

Then why the question:

So tell me, do you all really want to hit the carrying capacity of the planet in your life time (if we haven't already hit it)? If so, do you support returning to the pre industrial age in order to ensure enough food? ..............................
Of course if you want to have load of kids I don't care, but I suggest looking at india and china for why it's a bad idea.

You are drinking the population controller's kool aid when in reality it's better to heed the population implosion.

Do you think that the authoritarian nature of population control is a good thing? 

Reply #24 Top

once we hit the carrying capacity there's only a few options to ensure the survival of humanity, and given the beliefs I pick up from your posts, you won't like any of them.

1) colonize space(which opens up a whole new can of worms with either terraformation or geneticly engineering humans and food animals to survive in a non earth environment)

2) kill all terrestrial animals and convert all of humanaty to veganism(even then we'll still need one of the other options)

3) convert all of humanity to semi cannibalism(same note as option 2)

4) wage a series of wars(far more likely given the mindset of most people, And will likely have the result of reducing the carrying capacity of the planet)

5) ignore the anti-GM nutjobs and heavily modify the food supply for higher yields on poorer soil(at least until option 1 is economicly viable)

Knock, knock, we aren't going to hit the so called "carrying capacity". The application of the deeply flawed overpopulation theories of Thomas Malthus, through Darwin, eugenicist Francis Galton, the extremely racist Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, the United Nations and its organizations and foundations, have done at least 83 countries in. They desired declining populations and through the so called "reproductive rights" approach, they got the mess they desired. Contraception, unfettered access to abortion and sterilization have made fertility rates fallen so low that a wholly new world scare is developing....the population implosion.

Reply #25 Top

DRGUY

It is not about "unlimited" but about maximizing the capacity at the limits, which has been occurring since man began walking erect. And when man nears or meets the carrying capacity of the planet in one section, mother nature - of which man is a part - compensates.

Exactly.

Thomas Malthus' dismal theorem which I call the overpopulation myth was that growth in human numbers would out run food supply.

When in truth, human beings are living longer, healthier lives than ever before. Every year we set new records in grain production.

There is enough food being produced for everyone on the planet. Get rid of economic and political mismanagement and evil human activity like terrorists stealing food and aid that's meant for the poor and people's well being will be improved.