Right to LifeBoard

On a theological level, we seem to put a great deal of emphasis on applying the Adamic/Noahic commands to multiply to us today, but seem to minimize to nearly the point of nonexistence the commands of Paul written specifically to us, which says that non-marriage is not simply an acceptable option, but that we explicitly ought not to marry, unless burning with passion. I think that the social urge among devout communities to marry quickly, marry young, and have a great many children is something primarily fueled by culture. 'He who refrains from marriage does better' sounds instinctively culturally 'liberal' and at least in my experience seems to scarcely ever be promoted by the church, at best one hears thing such as 'singleness can be a gift/calling', that carry the tone of a consolation prize to make people who missed out on marriage feel better. Perhaps Catholics do better at this, but at least from Catholic commentators I have heard just as much if not more of the 'marry quick, marry young' urging, with singleness only seemingly referenced in the limited frame of a calling to the priesthood, rather than Paul's explicit preference for all people.

Moving to the practical grounds, I do not think that demographic 'collapse' is as apocalyptic as is implied by that terminology. It is an interesting sort of inverse Malthusianism, where instead of panicking that a growing population will ruin everything, we panick that a shrinking one will do so, and neither are correct, at least today. We are in the best shape to deal with a declining birthrate than ever in human history, the productive capacity of one person in the developed world is exponentially greater than it used to be, and in the less-developed world, while birthrates are falling as well, they are doing so more slowly than in wealthier countries, a 'softer landing' as that declines. Japan is the prototypical horror story, combining a dramatically lessened birthrate with the exacerbating factor of long lifespans and the second exacerbating factor of strictly limited immigration, to the point where their economy outright stopped growing and...they are fine. They have problems, certainly, economic and social difficulties, but so does every country, and theirs are rather less severe than many. The overwhelming majority of the population continues to live at a level of comfort unheard of for most of human history, and their demographic situation is on the far side of the bell curve in terms of its severity relative to what is most likely to happen in places such as the United States. Transitions to reduced populations, increased automation, and the like are liable to be bumpy, as all such transitions are, but particularly given the accompanying fears of automation, mass unemployment, declining populations, far from worsening that issue, may well make that adaptation easier. I cannot see any compelling evidence for punishing scarcity in demographic reduction-we have societally gone from the point where nearly the entire population must farm to keep the species alive to where a single percent can comfortably feed a nation, and that general trend applies across most all aspects of the economy. A reverse population pyramid can bring difficulties with less working-age people supporting more retirement-age people but the bad outcome, even in a case of actually shrinking GDP, is one of a general reduction in luxury rather than a general removal of necessities.

The final question would be geopolitical, more people=more power, economically and militarily, the shift of power from Europe, North America, and East Asian to mostly Africa by that standard. It is certainly a change, and any change in foreign affairs can be concerning, but besides the general fear of the unknown, I do not see an objective problem with this. For starters, international power is less dependent on pure population than it has been in history, the U.S. is not going to cease to be because of a weakened capacity for levee en masse, and MAD applies almost regardless of population, and for follow-up, these transitions are going to be extremely gradual, as those growing countries are also tailing off in their birthrates. It is not a situation of exponential growth for some and general decline for others, the fertility dip is global and affecting basically every country, which means a less dramatic, more gradual, and thus less disruptive shift in influence. Even with that said, while we all tend to be fans of the Western tradition, I am not entirely sure that increased influence for some of the more faithful nations in Africa over secularized Western Europe, or certainly China, is necessarily a bad thing. Shifting from specifics to generalities, while 'peak oil' and the like have long been exaggerated, the various resources of the Earth are still not infinite, and on those grounds, a contracting global population seems less likely to push us closer to conflicts over resources than a growing one would.