Two Children Should Be The Limit Says Environmentalist

[veritas]

Now that we've gone completely off track. The issue that I have with the article in the OP is that they are talking about stealing money from seeking cures for illnesses and focusing it on population control measures like contraception (not bad) and abortion (bad). And they want to get the worlds environmentalists on the bandwagon to pressure other nations. They consider those of us with more than two children "irresponsible" and that we should feel guilty for those nations that struggle with poverty and hunger, and now for destroying the environment. They do not take into account that those nations that do struggle with poverty and hunger are either lower on the civilization scale (less industry and economy) or they are victims of dictatorial forms of government. And some of the greatest pollution contributing nations are former Soviet block nations. Their economy prevents them from having the technology to live "greener."

That said, since this area is for the "Science of Sex," the focus is on the ideas of contraception and abortion. They should, IMO, instead focus on the societal norms that lead to the large number of un-wed, or "un-wanted" births. The push of sexuality in our society is atrocious. Children continue to have sex at younger and younger ages. Now there are junior-highers, and younger, that are having "friends with benefits." This is where we should focus. Rebuilding morality. But the humanists don't want that.

[MrSkiBum]

Then you don't believe in the Bible.

Veritas said we should not be scared about this. This is clearly supported by scripture. It does not mean it won't happen; it means we should not be overly concerned about it.

Yes, in terms of our ultimate salvation... though I'm not sure that's what Calliso was talking about. Should we have no ultimate fear because God is going to take care of us? Yes. Should we make no efforts to care for ourselves? Of course not.... the Bible has things to say about this as well.

Should we care for our earth? You'll run into the answer LONG before you hit any of those verses you quoted!

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I think we gloss over this too easily in english. While I'm not a huge fan of 'The Message' paraphrase... I think it sometimes does a much better job... and this is such a case:

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”

If we Christians are NOT environmentalists.... we are NOT good Christians! We just have to avoid some of the crazy spirituality that abounds in certain flavors of the environmental movement. (I say this because Christians do have things to fear from the environmental movement as a whole... but we're throwing the baby out with the bath-water too often.)

[MrSkiBum]

That said, since this area is for the "Science of Sex," the focus is on the ideas of contraception and abortion. They should, IMO, instead focus on the societal norms that lead to the large number of un-wed, or "un-wanted" births. The push of sexuality in our society is atrocious. Children continue to have sex at younger and younger ages. Now there are junior-highers, and younger, that are having "friends with benefits." This is where we should focus. Rebuilding morality. But the humanists don't want that.

I agree... but one thing I want to point out how critical it is that we Christians start modeling that first rather than just always trying to legislate it. In other words, we probably need to get our own ship in order before anyone will put any credence in what we say. Christians statistically have some of the biggest problems with divorce... and while I don't have them, I doubt it is much different for un-wed pregnancy.

One of the reasons I love TMB, is that I hope this is a start to correcting some of this... ie: better views of marriage and sex... better marriages... better families, etc.

However, our churches really need to start educating the flock. Especially in America, it seems like Christians spend much more effort trying to keep some 10 Commandment plaque up in a courthouse few probably see... while do almost no education on them in their churches.... or even know what they are. The state of Christianity INSIDE our churches is quite atrocious... how can we expect to have an influence OUTSIDE them.

[Calliso]

This is meant to be in response to a post about an article recently published that has top environmentalists in England saying that the problem that is causing "global warming" is that the population is too big and that forced population control is needed.

This is the article: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece

Well, it fits "nicely" with this: http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

Looks like "top enviromentalists" need to take a look at the latest studies like Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening

Ok I am going to address this article if no one minds though it will be a bit offtopic.

Ok first the article talks about the last winter. This is pretty much meaningless when talking about climate it is weather. I should also note that last winter we had a la nina and a sunspot minimum. I should also note that it is the 9th warmest year in the period of instrumental record. More info can be found here. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

As for looking at five years and other short time periods you can;t look at such short periods of time..you are still looking basically at weather if you do. But this is good to look at. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ch_lang/th
A good video to watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3OLRgc ... annel_page
And one more good link to look at.


As for ice levels this is a good video to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcb ... annel_page

Another good link too. http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

As for the polar bear thing read this.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ ... opulation/

I thought this may be a good reply to Easterbrook http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/1 ... l-cooling/

I am not even sure where Joe D’Aleo gets his info. I mean is he refering to the fact that sometimes you get years that are cooler then the one before? Then he is just talking about weather. Interesting enough he appears not to be a climatologist. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... eph_D'Aleo
And seems he doesn;t really use good science much of the time either... http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/06/26 ... quodlibet/

I should also note that it;s not just a bunch of enviromentalists that think human caused global warming is happening. And is still happening... http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environme ... 101-a.html scroll down to the part about The "Conspirators"


Ok sorry folks for going so off topic..this has become something I have been debating a lot lately though and when I saw that article...lets just say I had to say something!

[Calliso]

Calliso - here is a link to a site that talks about it:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050225_wobbly_planet.html

And here's a quote from that article:

"The rotation data shows oscillations over several different timescales. The one with the largest variation is seasonal: Earth slows down in January and February.

"It turns out that during the Northern Hemisphere winter, the winds - which are predominantly west to east - are stronger," Salstein said.

The more forceful winds double the angular momentum of the atmosphere. Angular momentum is a conserved quantity in nature - the example usually given is the spinning ice skater conserving angular momentum by speeding up when she brings her arms in.

In this case, the whole system - comprised of the spinning Earth and swirling atmosphere - adjusts to the blustery winter months by slowing down the solid Earth's rotation. This means the days get longer - by a few thousandths of a second.

The winter in the Southern Hemisphere does not produce the same increase in wind because the bottom of the world is mostly ocean and the temperature swings are, therefore, not as great.

Other associations

There are other smaller oscillations besides the seasonal one. The Madden-Julian cycle, which is a variation in tropical weather patterns that lasts about 30 to 60 days, corresponds to changes in the Earth's rotation.

On longer scales, the length of the day increases slightly during an El Nino - the two- to four-year cycle in Pacific Ocean temperatures that fuels global climate change. This is due to a shift in the Northern Hemisphere's jet stream, which is a high-altitude, fast-moving wind current."

The the earth can compensate for the changing climate. Like I said, though, stewardship is important. By I wouldn't rule out God in all this.

Interesting seems I was wrong about the Earth's rotation. However I am not totally sure what that has to do with climate change especially on time scales humans are really concerned with. It can compensate but probably not as fast as switching ona light or something like that. More like hundreds maybe over a 1000 years. But anyway I better drop this before people start throwing rotten tomatoes at me..

[veritas]

No tomatoes here. But it does compensate fairly quick. The degree of slowing is based on the climate at the time. So it has react somewhat fast.

[MrSkiBum]

But anyway I better drop this before people start throwing rotten tomatoes at me..

I say... let them throw. I think as a Christian, we have a responsibility to get the facts right, not just go along with the propaganda (from either side). There is a LOT of propaganda going on in BOTH sides.

I think the thing that puzzles me most is how resistant many Christians seem to be to doing things which would be better stewardship, regardless of who is right on the global warming issue. (well, given sinful nature, maybe it isn't exactly so puzzling as to why)

[mamame]

But anyway I better drop this before people start throwing rotten tomatoes at me..

I say... let them throw. I think as a Christian, we have a responsibility to get the facts right, not just go along with the propaganda (from either side). There is a LOT of propaganda going on in BOTH sides.

I think the thing that puzzles me most is how resistant many Christians seem to be to doing things which would be better stewardship, regardless of who is right on the global warming issue. (well, given sinful nature, maybe it isn't exactly so puzzling as to why)

I totally agree.

[Regulus]

Seriously, do you think that it's even possible that the world could get overpopulated?

Sure. The problem is that we don't know whether that point exists, or where it is if it does.

I really like the source Mr. Rkt has quoted; I'll have to look at it if I get a chance. That's the kind of rigorous analysis that might answer the if/when question. But if we keep making bogus predictions on flimsy evidence, will we ignore the real prediction if/when it comes?

[Job29Man]

In practical terms, you have to farm where you find both arable land and a water supply; and you have to live where there is a water supply, the use of which will not endanger farming.

Rkt,

Years ago the comedian Sam Kineson (whom I call "The Screamer") did a stand up routine about this. He was irreverently (as always) ranting about what bugs him. This time it was the fund-raising shows to feed starving people in Sub-Saharan Africa.

He said essentially that you see these commercials of starving people, and then a plea for money to buy food. He said "Look in the background. It's a desert! They live in a desert! Of COURSE there's no food in a desert. Move away! Stop living there! Go to where there's water, so you can grow food!"

I can't say I laughed. I thought he was over the top. But one did take his point, that there can be no food where there is no water.

The way I see it we may need to look at recruiting and incenting people to relocate to where they are closer to adequate food production and to water that doesn't need to be piped in from 600 miles away. The simplest and probably most effective way to accomplish this is with a free market in water (at least in the US/Canada). When it costs $3/day just to have the water to flush all your toilets in Southern California because you have to pay the REAL cost of bringing it in from other states,, then the market will drive people to places where water is more plentiful.

A few other things...

1. Lower consumption lifestyles, which I wrote about before. This can be fun, not a hardship.
2. Less tyranny, less communism/socialism, more free markets and capitalism. More personal liberty. This generally lifts a population up.

My DW lived in an African country when it had a King who promoted free markets, personal liberty (more or less), somewhat free speech, capitalism in general. The country became what was called "The Breadbasket of Africa", a HUGE exporter of food. Then the communists came in and took over with a revolution. And the nation lived in utter, and abject misery and poverty for the next 20 years under communist tyranny. Relief organizations came in and then you'd see the video of children with distended bellies and covered with flies. It was horrible. Of course they blamed it on drought. (Yeah right a drought caused by communism).

Now that country has ejected the Communists, and guess what? No more drought! Prosperity is returning. Imagine that!

[robin]

Yes, in terms of our ultimate salvation... though I'm not sure that's what Calliso was talking about. Should we have no ultimate fear because God is going to take care of us? Yes. Should we make no efforts to care for ourselves? Of course not.... the Bible has things to say about this as well.

I think it's a bit naive to assume God is going to be our magical Genie who will zap us food when we need it because there is none. I believe that verse goes far deeper then what you are implying.

Should we care for our earth? You'll run into the answer LONG before you hit any of those verses you quoted!

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I think we gloss over this too easily in english. While I'm not a huge fan of 'The Message' paraphrase... I think it sometimes does a much better job... and this is such a case:

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them: “Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge! Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”

I think you are using this verse out of context. The only time God commanded/told people to "be fruitful and multiply" were the times when there weren't enough people. Adam and Noah's family. The other times he mentions multiplying he is talking about specific people that He(God) will do this for himself in a manner of blessing them not having them do it for themselves.

The "filling" of the earth has been accomplished already.

Take a closer look if you don't mind. It doesn't seem the "be fruitful and multiply" suggestion was for us.

[sweetangel]

I personally think that populating our world is important. There are a lot of people but there are very few young ones to support the old.

I personally we have more children and I dont believe anyone should tell me I am wrong to do so. If you think you dont want more good for you I want more so what is it to you.

The overpopulating thing well I dont believe it.

[Job29Man]

Again the market can be a solution provider when it comes to supporting old people. Unfortunately when FDR created the Social Security System he created something called "pay as you go" meaning that today's workers pay for today's retirees, rather than saving towards their own personal retirement. This worked just fine as long as everyone would make the following promises and keep them.

1. You have to promise to have an average of over 4 children per family.
2. You must promise to not retire until you are 65.
3. You must promise to die before you reach 72 years of age.

If you break any of these promises, then you are responsible for some combination of the following results.

1. Somewhat higher SSI taxes upon yourself while you work.
2. MUCH higher SSI taxes upon your children.
3. Ridiculously, oppressively higher SSI taxes upon your grandchildren/great grandchildren.
4. Reduced benefits to yourself.
5. Delayed benefits to your children/grandkids/ggrandkids, to where you Personallyget to retire at age 65 but THEY must work till 68, 70, even 72 until they see a dime of SSI pay.
6. Devaluation of the money, i.e. "inflation" (sic) that eats up purchasing power.

Each president and Congress since FDR has had the opportunity to correct this system, and each has refused to tackle it, or has paid lip-service to a fix, but not accomplished anything. (It matters not the Party in power.)

IMHO any system of forced participation in a retirement scheme that is pay-as-you-go is doomed to failure, or to become oppressive upon our descendants, as long as birthrates don't keep the population growing, or as long as the age of death keeps increasing.

I leave each reader to decide the morality of a system that forces the next generation to pay our bills at a much higher rate than we had to pay for our parent's bills.

Personally I can find no Biblical principle which supports this concept. Now read carefully please, I didn't say anything about one's own children taking care of their very own personal parents. The current pay-as-you-go retirement systems of most Western nations do not resemble the Biblical "children caring for parents" principle in any way.

All those folks who believe in "sustainable" things need to understand that our way of taking care of ourselves when we grow old is NOT sustainable without being truly oppressive to our children.

How does this relate to the Science of Sex? The original issue is birthrates. The pay as you go retirement systems are based upon paying into the system with babies instead of dollars. There's the connection. It is reliant upon high fertility and "early mortality", else the house of cards breaks down into a Ponzi scheme.

[rdsmith3]

On the original topic, I am stealing this quote from K-House e-news that I got today, because it summarizes it better than I could

There is great danger in seeing human beings as a threat to the earth rather than recognizing that the earth is the temporary home God has given humankind. We need to take care of our temporary home, and we need to make sure our neighbors can eat, but we also need to remember that Jesus Christ died for human beings - not for planet Earth. This Earth will burn up one day. Humans were made to live forever.

let's not forget Romans 1:25 (HCSB)

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

[veritas]

Thank you for that rdsmith. That is exactly my issue with all this. I have no problem with better stewardship. I have a problem with what is essentially an earth religion. I have a problem with "scientists", politicians, and media that use scare tactics and panic to control people. These are the same people that look at Christians who speak against abortion as "right wing extremists." These are the same people that call Christians who point out the sin of homosexuality, "hatemongerers."

[rdsmith3]

Veritas

I am completely with you.

[VanGogh]

I just heard Tony Campolo make the following statement on his podcast today. At first I was disappointed that he was downplaying our over-population problem but now I realize that he was expanding on the issue. I really like the quote by Gandhi. I also like a comment that my Biology Professor at Calvin made. It came up in class that people are always debating the exact number that would constitute 'overpopulation'. His view was that we are already overpopulated. Under the assumption that we should live in relatively equal conditions... If everybody around the globe were brought out of poverty to the level we share in the US.... than the earth would already be overpopulated beyond sustainability.

Tony Campolo in reaction to Brian Mclaren on the topic of population:

"I don't think over population is quite the problem we see it to be. It is in third world countries. Primarily because the resources to sustain the communities is limited. But I think Gandhi said it well, '"There are enough resources to meet all the worlds needs but not enough to meet everybody's wants."' Certainly we here in the United States want stuff we don't need and we're exploiting resources at a rate that stagers the mind... In short, I know this is going to sound very marxist, but, I think that as Christians we should look for a more even distribution of the resources of the world and we would be able to support all of the people that are on this planet. When all of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and the masses are devoid of what they need to survive, to just simply turn around and say to those people, "You have to many children" is really obscene. There problem is not just that they have a lot of children, but that we have a corner on the resources, and the wealth of the rich nations need to be more evenly shared with the poor peoples of the world."

[Mr. Rkt]

VanGogh, I'm going to sound like a broken record here -- but this was addressed by Dr. Smil in his books as well. The conclusion that the standard of living must be reduced in order to achieve equity in population and provision is based upon energy and food production and consumption, as it is done today. That was his point. Food production could be greatly improved around the world with some coordinated planning and aid, and a transition to new energy technologies would provide the standard of living we have enjoyed on fossile fuels to the rest of the world, without exhausting what is left of fossil fuels.

He examined each of these technologies as they actually existed at the time of his writing (some of them have improved greatly since then), and mathematically demonstrated how fossil fuels could be moved to a niche market status, particularly in jet propulsion.

Even with improved agricultural planning around the world, there is still a limit to how much food the earth can produce, and in particular, how much red meat it can produce, so some adjustments would have to be made in modern diet to make it work comfortably. But these are changes that would also improve the quality of life and lower the cost of health care as a whole.

The earth has abundance built into it that is renewable and sustainable, but we have to be smart enough to use it properly. A high standard of living for every living person actually is possible. It is not necessary to assume that everyone must be poor in order to have equity.

[VanGogh]

The earth has abundance built into it that is renewable and sustainable, but we have to be smart enough to use it properly. A high standard of living for every living person actually is possible. It is not necessary to assume that everyone must be poor in order to have equity.

I agree that it is not necessary that everyone be poor. But I think that the gap between the rich and poor needs to shrink. The poor obviously need to be lifted out of their poverty and the rich need to cut back on frivolous waste. It goes back to needs vs wants. I have never read Dr. Smil's books, but I found this quote from a review of his book "Feeding the World" on Amazon.

His prescription is fairly simple: waste less, eat less, and produce more--and he shows just how easy it could be

I agree with that. I also like how he seems to be optimistic in our ability to handle the worlds growing population. We need optimism and we need options. I hope to be able to read one of his books in the near future.

I still think that we should encourage smaller families. Multiple options need to be used to care for the health of the planet. And I think that not allowing the population to recklessly reach a dangerously high population (especially in the more developed nations) is one of them.

[veritas]

Okay, to try this without "politics"....

I do not like the idea of wealth distribution. Period. It never encourages excellence, only mediocrity. The biggest benefit of free enterprise is that the harder you work, the more you can make. But if we start telling people that if they make too much, then we must give some of it to those who don't have as much. So, why should I work as hard as I can to excell, if what I make gets taken away? Or, why should I work as hard if I'm going to be given from what others make? The general idea is great, but it does not take into account human nature. It's the same idea as the old saying: "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for life." We will never make the poor less poor just by giving them money. We need to share with them how to make more. Whe can show them how to grow food in the desert. We have the ability to pass on knowledge. But to just hand out the material goods, does not esentially make them any better. We and up just encouraging them to be reliant upon others.

Don't get me wrong, we should help. But we can't force people to help. We can't be Robin Hood.