Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.

k8ly · December 2010

Something about overpopulation. I think the poster was saying they were pro-bcp because the world was overpopulated and some of you replied it was a myth.

I'm curious to hear more because I know people who are convinced this overpopulation thing is a crisis.

Thanks!

Riss91 · December 2010

It's based on a few facts and statistics, mainly that the world's population growth rate maxed out in the mid 1900s and has been in sharp decline. That along with a decline in fertility rates since WWII in Europe, China, India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America shows an opposing argument to overpopulation.

And is really obvious when looking at birthrates - The birthrate of Europe taken as a whole, from Ireland to Russia, is only 1.5 children per woman in her lifetime, far below the minimal replacement rate of 2.1. Latin America's is down to 2.4 and dropping fast. China's is 1.7. South Korea's is a mere 1.1. The United States is the only developed country at or above replacement rate; we're right at 2.1.

alliesono · December 2010

I must respectfully disagree with the previous posters. Being Catholic should not blind us to the fact that population growth is a real problem in many parts of the world. It is easy to not be concerned about population growth when we live in the wealthiest, most resource-rich country on Earth.

Many countries in Africa, especially in the sub-Saharan region, do not have enough food, water, or medical resources due to their increasingly large populations. Nigeria, for instance, has a population of over 150 million people, and has a fertility rate of 5.32 children per woman of reproductive age. There are approximately 1 billion people on the continent of Africa already. There are another 1 billion people in the country of India, which has a birth rate well above replacement at 2.76 children per woman of reproductive age.

Many developing countries have such high birth rates due to the low societal status of women in their countries. Women in these countries often get married and start having children shortly after they begin menstrating, because they have no other options. However, it has been shown in many countries, including most of the developed world, that the impowerment and education of women allows them to achieve greater social status and increases the age at which they get married and have their first child - lower the birthrate overall. As Catholics, we should work to empower women in developing countries, which allows them to provide a better life for themselves and their children.

UN website with world population prospects (2008):
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/tab-sorting_fertility.htm

Riss91 · December 2010

I actually agree with you alliesono, that parts of the world are overpopulated and there are definitely areas where birth rates are very high, due to lack of knowledge and resources.

But I don't think that the entire world is overpopulated. Nor that overpopulation in some areas means we should all be taking birth control. Especiallty when NFP is an acceptable means of controlling the number of children you have.

rombacja · December 2010

FI and I haven't gone through our marriage prep or NFP classes yet. Does anyone know what the rate of success with NFP is? I know my mother did NFP and was pretty unsuccessful (2 of the 4 of us were special presents). I'm assuming the process has improved in the past 30 years, but still I've heard of several people who have gotten pregnant while on NFP more recently. Does anyone know this info? Is it something I'll learn at NFP classes? TIA

mica178 · December 2010

I've heard the success rate is 95-98%. Remember that all birth control is only as effective as the user is at using it. So people who forget pills or forget condoms or ignore the signs of the STM are at increased risk of pregnancy.

agapecarrie · December 2010

NFP is more effective than any kind of artificial birth control. In fact, the statistics for ABC are way off.... they don't take into account that a woman can't conceive at least 3/4 of the month but the abc gets "credit" for preventing pregnancy even though it couldn't have happened anyway.

NFP ---the 4 main methods, have nothing to do with "calendar" method. They are based on observations of the body every day...it is made for women with irregular cycles.

I am in the beginning stages of learning to teach Creighton method... in all of the charts we've viewed so far, where the couples had a "surprise"...it actually wasn't a surprise because either they didn't observe closely, didn't chart correctly, or threw the rules away.

caitriona87 · December 2010

Ditto Riss.

And I am all for women's empowerment if it's meant in an authentic sense, but too often people use that term to mean "abortion and birth control."

I think there's also a hint of eugenics/racism at play in a lot of these issues (not really unexpectedly since that was at the root of the modern birth control movement.) I think some people imply (perhaps unintentionally) that because these people in developing countries are poor, they don't have a right to a large family. If you talk to people who work in these areas with organizations like Human Life International, many of their cultures value large families and see children as an asset, not a liability. Some of them see Westerners coming in with their "population control" as just another form of imperialism. It's kind of insulting to suggest that the problem is too many of "those" people rather than despotic governments, inadequate resource distribution, etc which are the real reasons for the poverty there. (P.s. none of this is directed at the PP, specifically, more at the organizations that promote the idea of overpopulation as the root of these problems.)

See foodnotcondoms and the documentary Demographic Winter for more info.

ootmother2 · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:5929da89-8477-434a-ad69-4e5a5328e5ac">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]I must respectfully disagree with the previous posters. Being Catholic should not blind us to the fact that population growth is a real problem in many parts of the world. It is easy to not be concerned about population growth when we live in the wealthiest, most resource-rich country on Earth. Many countries in Africa, especially in the sub-Saharan region, do not have enough food, water, or medical resources due to their increasingly large populations. Nigeria, for instance, has a population of over 150 million people, and has a fertility rate of 5.32 children per woman of reproductive age. There are approximately 1 billion people on the continent of Africa already. There are another 1 billion people in the country of India, which has a birth rate well above replacement at 2.76 children per woman of reproductive age. Many developing countries have such high birth rates due to the low societal status of women in their countries. Women in these countries often get married and start having children shortly after they begin menstrating, because they have no other options. However, it has been shown in many countries, including most of the developed world, that the impowerment and education of women allows them to achieve greater social status and increases the age at which they get married and have their first child - lower the birthrate overall. As Catholics, we should work to empower women in developing countries, which allows them to provide a better life for themselves and their children. UN website with world population prospects (2008): <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/tab-sorting_fertility.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp2008/tab-sorting_fertility.htm</a>
Posted by alliesono[/QUOTE]

Very well put!

When I was doing work at WHO years ago, the primary concern was underdeveloped nations and their growing birth rate that surpassed their ability to develop industrys

I have to say that I had to check your link to get the current stats. And stats are really only how you want to use them most often

alliesono · December 2010

I fully agree that women should not by told by anyone how many children they can or should have. I guess that I didn't really answer the question by OP, because I didn't really address the use of birth control at all. NFP is a wonderful thing, but it only works if the wife have any say in whether she will be intimate with her husband on any given night. In some highly male-dominated societies, this is simply not the case (not surprisingly, these countries also have the highest fertility rates). The answer, I feel, is totally in the education and independence of women in developing countries. It is a simple truth that if you postpone marriage and child-bearing from 14 to 24 (or even to 18), you will have less children because you will have started having them later. This does not go against Catholic teachings at all.

I simply wanted to make the point that over population is not a myth at all. It is a very real thing in some areas of the world, and I would argue that it affects us all. I'm not saying that this means we all need to be on birth control, nor should it affect our own decisions regarding family size. Chances are, most of us will have fewer children than is the average in sub-Saharan Africa simply due to our upbringing and education in a developed country. Over population affects everyone in the world due to the vast environmental consequences of such a large population. This ranges from intensified agriculture to feed the nearly 7 billion people on Earth to pollution of precious fresh water resources from the manufacturing of clothes, electronics, and everything else we consume.

I'm sorry for what seems to be a bit of a rant. I'm a graduate student in environmental science, and I tend to get passionate about this topic.

k8ly · December 2010

Ok - from what I'm hearing, over population is a problem - but not world-wide. It's a Microeconomics vs. Macroeconomics type thing?

So, if someone doesn't have a baby here in the US, for example, that's not going to affect the overpopulation in, say, Africa?

Riss91 · December 2010

A related article on the subject:http://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/population-environment

GulfCoaster · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:e6796004-b80f-4cd3-acde-fae8c76601e9">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]Ok - from what I'm hearing, over population is a problem - but not world-wide. Posted by k8ly[/QUOTE]

Right. Indeed, many countries are struggling with a falling population -- the UN estimated a few years ago that Russia could lose up to 1/3 of its population by 2050. The majority of countries in the developed world have birthrates far below the level necessary to replace their populations, so I suspect we'll see many more countries dealing with those issues in the years to come. (Per Wikipedia, 42% of people in the world live in countries where the birthrates are below the replacement level, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility</a> ) As PP points out, though, birthrates are not uniform and vary considerably from place to place.

IrishBrideND · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:e6796004-b80f-4cd3-acde-fae8c76601e9">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]Ok - from what I'm hearing, over population is a problem - but not world-wide. It's a Microeconomics vs. Macroeconomics type thing? So, if someone doesn't have a baby here in the US, for example, that's not going to affect the overpopulation in, say, Africa?
Posted by k8ly[/QUOTE]

It depends on how you view the world. Do you view it as Americans need to "replace" Americans? Or do you view this as human replacing human (overall)

k8ly · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:79db820f-4a9f-4f7b-b639-0e1d0fc0f50d">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back. : It depends on how you view the world. Do you view it as Americans need to "replace" Americans? Or do you view this as human replacing human (overall)
Posted by IrishBrideND[/QUOTE]

I guess I meant overall....if Americans have a lower than replacement rate, and other countries have a higher than replacement...the numbers may "work out".

It seems to me to be a distribution of resources and economic development, rather than a worldwide epidemic that is going to lead to the demise of the human race.

IrishBrideND · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:c0a83ba8-abe5-4889-b0ee-f87b75abcaa7">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back. : I guess I meant overall....if Americans have a lower than replacement rate, and other countries have a higher than replacement...the numbers may "work out". It seems to me to be a distribution of resources and economic development, rather than a worldwide epidemic that is going to lead to the demise of the human race.
Posted by k8ly[/QUOTE]

I dont have the answer because I haven't researched it much, but I would suggest you do your own research as well. Not to knock this board, because thats not my intent, but I personally would want to make sure the info wasn't biased since it is on a Catholic board (and we tend to be skewed in this debate).

k8ly · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:da59d25d-d22d-4563-91ca-611aca54af66">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back. : I dont have the answer because I haven't researched it much, but I would suggest you do your own research as well. Not to knock this board, because thats not my intent, but I personally would want to make sure the info wasn't biased since it is on a Catholic board (and we tend to be skewed in this debate).
Posted by IrishBrideND[/QUOTE]

Oh, am doing own research - just wanted A. Some starting points, and B. I was looking for the opinions on this board specifically.

Thanks.

Bec20 · December 2010

Well, if people were to all live the way we do in developed nations, we wouldn't have enough space or resources to deal with all of us. I understand that in developed nations many of the populations are dropping, but I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Humans are, as a whole, a rather destructive species and I don't think that it would be catastrophic if our population hit 7 billion then started to fall back downwards.

I know in Canada the population only has been staying relatively stable because of immigration provides for what birth rate doesn't. But even so, I don't think that it would be wise for people my age to all decide that we should have four children just to increase the number of people who are born as Canadians.

Overpopulation isn't a myth, it's a fact. Humans are humans no matter what their ethnicity is and, since we don't have the ability to provide the basic necessities for everybody then there is a problem. If we even look at here in North America, our clean, fresh water will run out sometime. Future wars will be fought, of course, but many of them will be over water. Canada already is under increasing pressure to sell water to the USA, regardless of the consequences that come from our two countries using 10x as much water per person per day as other countries.

Riss91 · December 2010

The reason it is considered a "myth" is because the extrapolated data projections made back when overpopulation was deemed an issue are no longer valid. The predictions were wrong. And the statistics are showing that globally, we are beginning a decline. So yes, we had a population explosion in the past century, but it appears we've "topped off", and therefore the big tragedy of overpopulation isn't as big of a deal anymore.

From the article I linked above (an un-biased resource that is not religion-motivated):

From 1950 to 1955, the global "total fertility rate" (roughly speaking, the average number of children born per woman per lifetime) was five. That was explosively above the so-called replacement rate of 2.1 children, the level needed to keep a population from falling over time, absent immigration. This scary growth continued for about 15 years until, by 1975 to 1980, fertility had fallen to four children per woman. Fifteen years after that, the rate had fallen to just below three. Today the total fertility rate is estimated at 2.8, and sinking.

Five children per woman. Then four. Then three. Then less than three. In estimating the population for the year 2050, demographers were caught with their projections up. Suddenly, worldwide, 650 million people were "missing." Many more will be missing soon. They will never be born.

But what about women in those teeming less-developed countries —those swarming places where the population bomb was allegedly ticking most loudly? Even there, the fuse is sputtering. Their fertility rate in 1965 to 1970 was six children per woman. Now it's three, and falling more quickly than ever before in demographic history.

IrishBrideND · December 2010

You can't just look at fertility rate, however. You have to look at other factors (like OP metioned: is each person taking up more room and more resources now?.....or how long does the average person live?)

I'm not saying overpopulation is or isn't an issue. But its more complex than number of children per woman. For example, how many of those children are surviving? Just because the average woman in a developing nation is no longer having 6 kids does not mean that less are surviving to adulthood (with improved health standards).

All of these issues need to be considered.

mica178 · December 2010

I don't think the world is overpopulated by just the numbers, but as some PPs mentioned, the industrializing world is consuming more resources. We use more energy on a global level because more societies are becoming urban. At some point, unless we find new ways to produce energy and to conserve limited resources (largely water), if there is continued population growth, there might be problems. We haven't reached that point yet, though, and I am hopeful for non-oil based energy development and more efficient farming in the near future.

agapecarrie · December 2010

For some idea to understand what we are talking about:

If you were to put the world's popuation (for simplicity's sake: 6 billion) into texas, every person would have 1,242 sq feet to themselves.

IrishBrideND · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:c5def064-fd14-4893-b506-7b229ff8f236">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]For some idea to understand what we are talking about: If you were to put the world's popuation (for simplicity's sake: 6 billion) into texas, every person would have 1,242 sq feet to themselves.
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

ok. I'm not sure what that proves. I'm more concerned about resources a person takes up. Its not only, or mainly, about how much space each person will take up...but how much space each will take up when you add in land needed for the resources they will consume.

Again, its complicated :D

Riss91 · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:38b5002b-58e5-4166-94ee-2acdd4619aaf">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]You can't just look at fertility rate, however. You have to look at other factors (like OP metioned: is each person taking up more room and more resources now?.....or how long does the average person live?
Posted by IrishBrideND[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I know the sources I've mentioned have taken into account average life span. As far as resources go, I guess I don't see that as an overpopulation problem, but rather an over-use or misuse of resource problem.....

Riss91 · December 2010

Another thought re:underdevelop countries' overpopulation...cuz the gears in my brain are spinning today....

So, say Europe had a bunny epidemic, where bunnies were reproducing outta control...millions of bunnies everywhere!.....It wouldn't solve Europe's bunny population problem for the people in Australia to stop the bunnies in Australia from reproducing. The answer would be to help Europe come up with a way to prevent further reproduction. And just because Europe had a bunny population problem wouldn't mean the world was overpopulated with bunnies...

and just for good measure and a pinch of cuteness for the afternoon:

k8ly · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:1005a8d3-6c50-43e9-b6bf-64abee00e50f">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]Another thought re:underdevelop countries' overpopulation...cuz the gears in my brain are spinning today.... So, say Europe had a bunny epidemic, where bunnies were reproducing outta control...millions of bunnies everywhere!.....It wouldn't solve Europe's bunny population problem for the people in Australia to stop the bunnies in Australia from reproducing. The answer would be to help Europe come up with a way to prevent further reproduction. And just because Europe had a bunny population problem wouldn't mean the world was overpopulated with bunnies... and just for good measure and a pinch of cuteness for the afternoon:
Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

Aaaaahhhhnn....see, now why can't the ones eating my tulips look like that?

Nice analogy!

Calypso1977 · December 2010

the one thing i never get is the water argument. isnt like 3/4ths of our planet water? granted, most of it is salt water, but are you really telling me that we can put a man on the moon and create computers that fit in our pockets but we cant find a way to remove teh salt from this water so its drinkable?

Bec20 · December 2010

Yes, a huge chunk of our planet is water. But the percentage of accessible fresh water is very small. We need it to drink, but so do animals and the rest of the ecosystem needs it too keep balanced as well. Technically, we could process the salt water and whatnot to make it drinkable BUT nobody is doing it. Just like we can make cars that don't run on gasoline, it still isn't happening for one simple reason: money.

Plus, the changing process would put more chemicals into the environment, the water we do have, etc. It would be much simpler if people simply used less water, which many people aren't willing to do for one reason or another (ex. showering every 1.5 days instead of every day). The only other really easy way to fix the problem is to have fewer people being born. Ideally from an environmental standpoint, both would happen together.

As for 650 million people being missing, that's not really true. After all, that was only an estimate. It wasn't as though they were saying that there needed to be a certain number of people born by 2050, it was just their estimate of how many people would be born by that time. You can't be missing if you were only ever speculated to exist.

The world would continue to run just fine even if the population of humans decreased by 50%. It's not as though we NEED to keep increasing in population or that we NEED to hold steady. Industrialization has lead to people having a much larger impact on the world, which only increases with globalization and more countries wanting to live like Europe and North America.

Looking at global footprint alone (http://myfootprint.org/en/visitor_information/) if everybody lived like me, we'd need about 4 1/2 Earths... and my averages were LOWER than they were for the rest of the country. Overpopulation isn't about how many square feet each person would get or if the planet can pysically support all of us, it's about if we can actually live without depleting the resources for future generations.

IrishBrideND · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:99a87263-5a08-4843-b1b7-be992e861c9f">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:
[QUOTE]the one thing i never get is the water argument. isnt like 3/4ths of our planet water? granted, most of it is salt water, but are you really telling me that we can put a man on the moon and create computers that fit in our pockets but we cant find a way to remove teh salt from this water so its drinkable?
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

yes desalinisation (sp?) is possible. In fact its being done. But that harms the enviroment as well.

The resource problem is real.

ootmother2 · December 2010

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_curious-myth-post-awhile-back?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:6ec77515-67bc-4a77-bcf7-ff33efa126dbPost:99a87263-5a08-4843-b1b7-be992e861c9f">Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.</a>:

[QUOTE]the one thing i never get is the water argument. isnt like 3/4ths of our planet water? granted, most of it is salt water, but are you really telling me that we can put a man on the moon and create computers that fit in our pockets but we cant find a way to remove teh salt from this water so its drinkable?
Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

Many of the caribbean islands depend on desalination and it's outragously expensive. So expensive, that toilets are treated so they can flush with ordinary sea water. Again, that treatment is expensive. Even the seemingly wealthy hotels and condo resorts are paying more for water than for common beverages.

Other than the tourist areas, most of these islands are desperately poor and, yes, overcrowded. The local population stays in set areas where there is access to what they need on a daily basis. Schools, churches, jobs, etc. Half of them live in metal sheds with 6 or 7 children and often tthe grandparents. Yes, there is overcrowding, even in "paradise".

Water supply is a real concern to the populations, the expanding population in particular.

I have no solution, the governments have no solution and even the UN & WHO are scratching their heads.

DFWIndian · December 2010

Ok I know we aren't suppose to take things on here personally, but honestly people think about the countries you are talking about! This is not just about being poor and them over populating! These countries have traditions and customs which to the normal western society is considered strange and sometimes crazy. The problem with getting drinking water and other resources is not lack of them all the time. Most of the time it is the government and accessiblity to the resources. Plus remember there are place in both of the countries mentioned above where people live in farming and rural places.
People are choosing to live in a dense "city" sometimes. I've seen it, I've lived there and the truth is the distribution of contraceptives is not going to change the mind of someone who is doing something they have been brought up to know is right. Having kids is something they know they will have. It is NOT America! They know BC, but they may still have 5 kids. It's how we are raised!
Also, definitions of living poor are different. Yes, many of of them have barely any food or water, but when those statistics come out they include people like my family who are still back there. They don't want for much, but due to the amount of money or things they have they are thrown into the poor catergory by American standards.
Sorry I took this really to heart. When you go there and see it you'll see. When you are brought up WAY different then anyone else you know, you understand.

Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.

Re: Curious about a myth that was in a post awhile back.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards