Population Control and Religion

Only religions preach we should breed as much as possible. Should we impose population control? It would force every religion to bow to our shared land. Our population is unsustainable and a shared love of the land would render those sermons impossible. Is religion so hell bent on doctrine that it wants to destroy many of the species created in our absence for it's own ego? It looks that way.

reply to post by redled
Religions do not preach population control because it goes against the maxim of" do onto others as you would have done onto yourself". Sterilization of women causes hormone imbalances ,results in early aging , and decreased sex drive. Those who say they want all women to be sterilized after their first child will find living in a world full of prematurely aged women with no sex drive to be unpleasant. I've noticed that the biggest proponents of population control do not sterilize themselves.

I'm certainly not advocating sterilisation. Religion advocates no responsibility. I'm of the school of thought of forced adoption as an 'incentive,' not forced abortion. Sterilising someone is an even further act of invasion (we may need them to breed in the future real politik says).

How does religion advocate no responsibility? Most religions believe in abstinence and no sex before marriage...I don't see your logic. Religions such as Christianity say to spread your seed, but it doesn't say to go screw everything that moves and have as many babies as possible.

reply to post by redled


Isn't this silly. Some religions teach the concept of increasing followers by increasing offspring but being that most religions (especially the major world religions held by the majority of the world's population) teach abstinence, sometimes chastity, and that sex should be limited to the marital union, I really don't see how holding religion responsible for the population boom makes any sense whatsoever.

reply to post by AshleyD


Fair play with the 'most' religions, but they do account for an awful lot of the world. They do teach to procreate (within Marriage), and in the case of Islam, this is explicitly expressed. I brought this up because there is a bit of a do on in the Anglican Church about this gay Bishop, and one other Bishop stated that we were on this world to 'procreate,' which is sustainably unacceptable. Do we want to destroy this planet and hence so many of our creators species that a future species achieving sentience will view us as the creation of the devil?

I am not under the impression that most relegions preach that we should breed as much as possible. As mentioned, relegion generally teach abstinence. Many churches and relegious groups do press the importance of procreation, but I would hardly hold relegion responsible for overpopulation. Certain fundamentalist ideas and ideals with roots in relegion can be said to be contributing to it, but in the end it's up to each couple to take population into consideration when reproducing. It's all about not being stupid and egoistic. I do not take cults and totally fanatical groups into consideration here, to cut relegion as a whole some slack. I like to believe most of them are non-representative of their respective relegions.

The general message I agree with. The Earth can not substain the current human population, and I personally support population control. This should be done in the least authoritarian way possible though. Forced sterilization is a frightening concept, so it pleases me to see that none has yet to speak of that as a viable solution. Reproduction should not be a right in my opinion, but as far as I know, it is in many nations, and I am of the opinion that people should be allowed to reproduce if they want to. It may be smart to implement restrictions though. A one-child policy with forced adoption if you want more children is a perfectly viable solution in my opinion. Forced adoption from the start would be the most ethical, but to enforce such a radical policy would be far too authoritarian. It's not only about ethics and logic. We have to take into consideration the worth of bringing a child to life and raising it as well. Procreation is instinctivly important for most human beings, and it can bring new meaning and happiness to a human's life.

I'd like to see a study that says that religious people breed more often than nonreligious people, which is highly unlikely; in fact, I'm sure it's about even thus making the theory bunk.

Originally posted by yellowcard
I'd like to see a study that says that religious people breed more often than nonreligious people, which is highly unlikely; in fact, I'm sure it's about even thus making the theory bunk.

The problem is that religion is an extra wall in the way of it's Universality. I know Catholics with five children, Catholics with none, but it is religion (or a subset of) as a lobby group that is going to be hardest to sway on this matter, due to doctrine. If I was assuming anything then it is that religion will be hardest to persuade and hence stand in the way.