But he actually goes on from there to make an argument against the evolutionist scenario. I leave it to your own reading, since I link to the article (see below).
And - here is a point too, but one which I have been making much more recently - he says modern welfare society produces smaller families than rural societies. Here is where I will quote, since he makes a point and still does not get all of it:
What causes population growth?
The population grows when more people are born than die. The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.2 In other words, for every 100 million people, 1.7 million are added every year; i.e. births net of deaths.
Many assume that modern medicine accounts for the world’s population growth. However, ‘third world’ countries contribute most of the population growth, suggesting that modern medicine is not as important as many think.
Population growth in a number of South American and African countries exceeds 3% per year. In many industrialized countries with modern medical facilities, the population growth is less than 0.5%. Some relatively wealthy countries are actually declining in population.
The move from agriculture to manufacturing/technology has been a big factor in slowing population growth in industrialized countries. Farmers needed to have sons to help with the farm work. This was particularly necessary before mechanization. My own family records show that in the early- to mid-1800s in Australia, couples commonly had 8–10 surviving children. One couple had 16! And this was before the discovery of the germ basis of disease,3 aseptic surgery,4 vaccines3 and antibiotics. Opportunity to expand, combined with biology, saw growth in population of 4% or more, plus increases due to immigration. High rates of population growth were also seen in Quebec, Canada, from 1760 to 1790, following the British conquest of Canada in 1759,5 and well before the impact of modern medical knowledge.
In industrialized countries, the advent of social security pensions and retirement plans (superannuation) has probably been another major factor in the decline of population growth. These schemes mean that people do not see the need to have children for security in their old age. Furthermore, people can now easily choose how many children they have because of modern birth control methods, such as the contraceptive pill.
Now, the problem with this latter approach is also, it will only work for so many generations. In Europe indigenous women (excluding immigrant and few immigrations after immigration) are below reproduction rate. That is: either welfare system will break down when there are too many old among the young, or it will be kept up for a time by immigration. But if ever immigrants of a non-European culture - or of a few non-European cultures combined - become the majority, they will hardly keep on paying to a welfare system which ruined the majority position of the previous majority population, us. Not because they are monsters with no sense of solidarity or brutal hatred of white men (some few at least are a bit like that too, but that is not my main point), but simply because they are not stupid.
If you inherited a house because previous owner ruined himself by opium abuse - would you want to keep the opium pipe smoking any longer than when you could stop it? The welfare system is the opium of the people, specifically of women. Solidarity naturally spells: couples raise children, grown children provide for aged parents. Aged people without children capable of looking after them are looked after by neighbours. And that is not an incentive for women to stay away from childbed and go to work, but the reverse.
Where are all the people?
by Don Batten
Even if he is not a Catholic, he did provide an argument for Catholic sexual and family morality. Thank you!