Okay, a question mainly for the Christians here.
The world's population currently stands around about 6.7bn, and is projected by the UN to reach 9bn by 2050. Even at current population levels, it's been calculated that a typical Western lifestyle consumes resources at a level that would require 3 planet Earths if everyone lived like us. Or put another way, if everyone wanted to live this way, there should only be about 2bn of us. To put it in a nutshell we can only live the way we currently do because most of the world's population can't.
We already seem to be experiencing the first symptoms of overpopulation, with food prices rocketing due (in part) to excess demand. Water shortages are likely to cause problems before long, resulting in reduced crop yields and even higher food prices, and energy prices have been climbing sharply for some time.
Given all this, is it time the church started to speak differently about the moral issues associated with breeding? Should Rochester's views on children http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/669847.stm be reversed, so that couples with huge families are branded as self-indulgent? Do you think that any church would go out of its way to discourage families who are probably breeding a healthy chunk of its future congregation? Or is the issue more to do with lifestyle change, and changes in the way we treat the planet as a whole.
Mani Hussain Mon 09/06/08 21:19
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
Mani - It's quite rare to find big families in the UK these days, with modern lifestyles it's very difficult to finance and manage loads of kids for most working couples. So I dont think reducing the number of children is going to reduce our resource consumption that much.
The core of the problem is that the basic standard of existance in a developed country uses huge amounts of resources compared with developing countries. Consider the impact of all those single person households in the UK. I'm just trying to make the point that I don't think the consumption problem comes from large families, it comes from the prevailing lifestyle choices and expected standards of living.
|
|
|
It's a good question, Mani.
Religions encourage high birthrates because, obviously enough, it results in more followers. Clearly from a planetary perspective this cannot be sustained indefinitiely, and you've already identified that the Reverend Mathus may be coming out to play (Mathus stated that where population exceeded food, natural checks and balances (war, famine etc) would come into play to reduce the population).
There is also a wider entirely non-religious issue about lifestyle that will have to be addressed if we are not to see massive involuntary depopulation, encompassing not just birth rate, but also general stewardship of the planet (and, to bring it back to religion, I'm appalled that some Christians seem to have such a laissez faire attitude towards green issues, apparently believing God will step in if there's a problem, so feel free to behave like a c***).
|
|
|
I have six children, and it was damned difficult raising them on just the one wage packet.
I am, however, exceedingly rich for having a large family, as the interaction between us all is absolutely priceless, even given the many problems we have had to cope with over the years.
It's a shame that we don't have a higher birthrate, to at least replace the aging population, rather than having to rely on immigration to make up the shortfall.
The quality of life is measured in consumption these days, rather than the size and strength of family and community.
But, family and community have been attacked and undermined for years, and that look set to continue.
That is a greater threat than green issues in my opinion.
|
|
|
I was in a shop the other day, paid and placed the goods in a carrier bag I'd bought along with me. I said something like 'Save the planet and all that' to which the shop keeper replied 'Why?' - I really didnt have an answer for that.....
|
|
|
As far as religion is concerned in this, I think they should certainly review their birth control stance.
Other than that its a non-entity. In contrast to Waldo, I would hazard that the people in the UK who generally have larger families (present company excepted) are as far removed from Christianity as you could probably get, live on benefits and handouts and would say f**k the planet, its everyone elses fault. Some of them might even be atheists, God forbid. Although, it would seem from Waldo that if we could only get the Christians to not just rely on God, then the planet can be saved.
Most people will genuinely consider their familiial offspring's future witthin a deteriorating planet, and will make consciencious decisions to try and safeguard it. I don't really think (in the UK at least) that religion is the sole frontier in our future.
|
|
|
Not that I was talking about the UK in particular, Octavius, but you're wrong; Muslims are having the largest families in the UK.
I realise you seem to think everything I say is somehow a personal attack, but don't let your dislike blind you to the actual words used. I did not say that the planet would be saved if Christians gave up God, nor did I mean to imply it. I made a very specific point about *some* Christians and their views about green issues, which Theland then obligingly illustrated.
|
|
|
My position on green issues is quite simply, I comply with whatever laws I have to regarding re-cycling etc, and am glad to adhere to common sense practices such as reducing plastic bag use, and anything else that causes a littering problem.
There are in my opinion, far more pressing issues that are a danger to my kids and their kids, terrorism being one, and the seemingly unstoppable march of the muslims on the west generally, and the U.K. in particular.
|
|
|
In consideration of my children, I would be more immediately concerned about street crime and the like, perpetuated by people from all walks of life.
|
|
|
Not at all.
The scriptures promoted by the Minions of Abraham predict an incredible upheaval called Armageddon where two thirds of all humans are anhiilated leaving only the true believers. This should leave about the right number if we don't wait too long to bring it on.
Unfortunately there appears to be very little consensus about which team has the chosen doctrine. The Israelites got off to a good start but fell out of favour long ago.
The Christians already have their quota of two billion, mainly due to excellent work by the Catholics over a couple of milennia. The ban on contraception worked a treat.
The Muslims have a way to go with only a billion believers. The late start has been a problem but they are working hard despite losses to the suicide bombers. Turning women into reproduction machines seems to be an effective strategy even if they did copy an old idea.
The Jews have been a big disappointment. Hitler really set them back in the race but their real problem is only counting the children born to Jewish women.
Hindus and Bhuddists acutally have better results but boycotted the race so apparently they get wiped out whoever wins.
As for the rest of us there isn't much we can do. Half the world believes in the glory of Armageddon and eagerly await its arrival to vindicate the prophesies. Many have put in a lot of work to bring it closer day by day. All those who worship Abraham's monster deserve some credit.
However, depending on who wins, man of the match would surely go to George W Bush or Osama bin Laden who have put in a splendid effort. Special mention to a plethora of mullahs, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
|
|
|
I find it a bit hypocritical for the UK to lecture China about global warming but are unwilling to practice their 1 child policy. Why should they listen to us?
|
|
|
Like JJ2006 says, it is more about lifestyle rather than size of family. In the west our overconsumption of meat is not to do with large families but eating it too frequently and only eating parts of the animals. This over consumption leads to a need to grow an excessive amount of food for animal feed, leading to ecological and economic problems.
I personally don't think the church has any role, but given it has set itself as a moral guardian and is going to provide guidance then it should be in keeping with a view of the world population rather than current or possible new christians.
Bye way Waldo McFroog I am slightly unsure about a c***).in your earlier reply, I am sure you would never use a slang term for female genitalia as a term of abuse, its just I can not for the life of me think what word would be censored out that starts with c. Is it one of AB's quirks?
|
|
|
I'm not above using it, but as it happens it wasn't that word.
|
|
|
So you are not a feminist then.
Oh well
|
|
Loans | Payday Loans | Auto Loans | Buy PSP | Mortgage
