mightychurch.com

Does anyone have access to the original transcript of this statment from Synod? http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglicans-argue-for-fewer-kids-20100508-ukwo.html

As the parent of 4 children, I’ve got to say I find it pretty offensive

Hi Glenn, after a bit of effort ( it was indeed hard to track down ), I have found this PDF link :

http://www.population.org.au/images/stories/Documents/pdf/anglican general synod of australia february 2009 .pdf

[ make sure you copy & paste the WHOLE link above - there is an imbedded problem ]

[ Also, if you try to “copy” and “paste” the article you may find sentences ‘missing’ here and there. Seems to be corrupted links. ]

Also, today’s article at :      http://www.population.org.au/        ends with this dating :

The Discussion Paper referred to in this article is “Key issues and actions for us to take: A discussion paper prepared by the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican General Synod of Australia February 2009”....

This ‘discussion’ paper seems more like a summary of what others have already written. For example, the SMH/AGE cite :  ‘Unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment - ‘Thou shall not steal’.’  ***

This is actually a quote from Tim Flannery on   Enough Rope, ABC TV, 22 September 2008. 
                                    (  *** see bottom page 9/top page 10 of the PDF.  )

As this ‘discussion paper’ is actually over a year old, it is not new. Rather it looks like some desperate reporter has finally belatedly got to the bottom of their in-tray - or it is just another controversial ‘filler’ for the papers.

I won’t lose any more sleep over it. It has no authority - just words on a page ( well 24 actually ) -  just more ‘blowing in the wind’.

Ah, thanks.  I really should have been more sceptical of this coming from the SMH/Age political editor :)  That makes much more sense

There probably should be some discussion of these issues in the church. After all, God’s command was to fill the earth, not overfill it, and many people think the earth is full enough now.

And yet at the same time, every child is a huge blessing from God, both for the parents, their family, and the whole world.

I prefer a balanced approach to this issue. 

To have no kids would be altogether financially selfish, as several evangelical leaders like Driscoll and Chandler have stated.  But then, the other extreme is to have so many kids (I’m talking about maybe 6+ here) it genuinely drains both their ability to raise and Australia’s overall wealth (through the baby bonus - I consider it to be a bad idea too - and other welfare claims).

How is having no kids financially selfish?

Dannii Willis - 10 May 2010 06:11 PM

There probably should be some discussion of these issues in the church. After all, God’s command was to fill the earth, not overfill it, and many people think the earth is full enough now.

And yet at the same time, every child is a huge blessing from God, both for the parents, their family, and the whole world.

Absolutely! Both are very important paradigms to consider.

In an exchange with Dr Andrew Cameron that helped prompt his piece on “The peak oil society” I also asked him about overpopulation. So far it has not led to a follow up paper on population… that I know of. Who wrote this? Could this be it?

Anyway, the old I=PAT measure is full of both dire warning and wonderful opportunity, depending on where technology goes. So I’m agnostic about how many people the earth can support this century, but will venture on the side of caution that right now, less is probably more. We don’t have to adopt a Chinese 1 child policy to have a general policy that ‘generally speaking’ encourages a lower population.

EG: Tinkering with immigration so that we compassionately take in more refugees, who are currently a tiny fraction of our total immigration intake, while the majority of immigrants to Australia that we currently take in are skilled workers we have enticed away from developing nations that need them more! So a level immigration policy (where outgoing roughly equals incoming) and removing the baby bonus and a few other tinkering at the edges policies here in Australia would make our population stabilise without anything radical like a 1 child policy.

Now, if you’ve got this far you’ve done better than I expected but here’s a little more from my blog on the question of “how many people” we can fit on this earth. It’s just a thought experiment.

7. Why I think IPAT gives grounds for hope.

Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology

Just to illustrate how this equation might work, lets arbitrarily call 1 person living a first world lifestyle having an ‘Affluence’ of 1. Someone living in a slum in Bangladesh might only have an “Affluence’ of 0.1 in this example, but for ease of illustration, my Australian lifestyle is 1 unit of terrible environmental impact.

So ignoring Technology for the moment the equation would look something like this.

Impact = Population * Affluence

Impact = 6.7 billion people * Affluence of 1 first world lifestyle = 6.7 billion units of Impact to the environment (how ever we actually want to measure it, whether Co2 emissions, species loss, topsoil erosion, water consumption, or whatever kind of environmental impact you want to insert — I am keeping this argument to general principles only.)

Now let’s look at the Technology with which we fuel and run our hypothetical society.

We live in a society in which fossil fuels have acted as a ‘bad’ multiplier, especially as oil has enabled suburban sprawl. So for arguments sake say that the negative environmental consequence of the oil & sprawl age have tripled our impact on the environment.

Impact = Population * Affluence * Technology

Impact = 6.7 billion * Affluence of 1 first world lifestyle * 3 (technologies of fossil fuels and suburbia) = 20.1 billion!

That’s suddenly 20.1 billion units of Impact on the environment, merely from using the wrong energy and city building technologies.

Now lets assume that the world shifts to the city planning Technology of New Urbanism over the next 40 years, and that we wean off fossil fuels onto renewables (and nuclear and fusion and whatever). I’m also going to assume the recycling technologies of “Cradle to Cradle” systems design and green chemistry are providing more of our material and fibre needs than, say, mining. So for this example, I’m going to assume that the right technology can halve our impact! So, maybe 40 years into our future the equation looks more like this:

Impact = 2050 Population of 9 billion * Affluence of 1 first world lifestyle * Technology of 0.5 (renewable + New Urbanist technology world) = only 4.5 billion units of impact on the environment. We’ve cut our impact to a quarter of today’s impact by dropping suburbia and fossil fuels!

Of course this is illustrative only, but I’m convinced that this is the kind of potential power we have to solve these problems if the right city planning, materials, and energy technologies are implemented fast enough.

However, this picture remains a pipe-dream until we actually build all of this infrastructure. And how are we going to afford this when the world’s marketplace is bankrupted by peak oil, and with what energy are we going to build all of this after peak oil and gas?

All of these innovations in city planning and renewable energy remain utopian fantasies until governments, laws, people, and cultures change to implement them. So ultimately population targets must employ the precautionary principle in setting the limit that as low as humanely possible.

We have an oil crisis now.
We have an ecological crisis now.
We have a global warming crisis now.

We also have exponential growth in human knowledge, and the ability to change cultures, energy systems, city plans and zoning, and enact emergency legislation for the new conditions we will face. We can and do adapt to new realities. Will we do so in time? Will people care enough? What will you do to help alleviate this situation by spreading awareness?

http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/solutions/reduce-population/

The argument is a pragmatic one.  That the substantial money that’s used on raising kids ends up propping the couple’s lifestyle. 

Some may say “But no it won’t; it will be spent on the church, outside missions or charities”.  I know that doesn’t usually become the case in this materialistic world.

But some parents decide that they just can’t handle the stress of living in Sydney, working 2 careers, AND raising a large family.

Who are these ministers to say that’s wrong? Is it greed to admit that we live in an incredibly fast-paced, stressful modern world without the balance of yesteryear? There’s hardly any time to spend with our kids these days, and so what is this obsession with large families?

I’m convinced that this is the first generation of Christians that have to ask not just how many kids they can afford, but how many is really ethical, and I can’t even begin to imagine how that will play out in future Briefing’s or CASE magazines.

The Book of Common Prayer, in the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, states:

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

 
These Anglicans seem a little un-Anglican to me!
   
Moreover, they are pretty vague on how many is too many.
   
Here are some birth-rate and family size stats.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/C5F935614146DE94CA2572360000E3D4?opendocument

In 2004 there were 254,200 births registered in Australia, resulting in a total fertility rate of 1.77 babies per woman.

 
http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/birth_rate.html

Birth rate: 12.47 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)

Dave & Ros, the argument isn’t one against just 1-2 kids vs 5+.  It’s against having no kids at all.

Sorry Arthur, I don’t understand you.  Which argument?
 
My argument from the BCP is that deliberately having no children is against God’s purposes for marriage.  I find the argument about money and affordability quite irrelevant when you take this perspective.  Edit - I’ll say that second sentence another way.  God’s purpose is that marriage should produce children who should be brought up to know Him.  This second bit is important, and I think they are ignoring it, and that their perspective is therefore wrong.
 
The argument from planetary sustainability would point (roughly) to a maintainence bithrate.
 
Unless I missed it, the report from the ‘Anglicans’ didn’t specify a number of kids, they just said people should have ‘fewer’.  Seeing as the Australian birthrate is really quite low, I find this an extraordinary statement.  Australians aren’t having 6 kids, but less than 2!  Other countries birthrates are much higher, but I think it’s a dud argument to say we should have fewer to compensate.
   
Here are some global stats:
   
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=25
     
Niger 51.6
India 21.76
China 14
US 13.82
Aust 12.47
HongKong 7.42
I think I’ve copied those correctly.

Population growth rate
The trend of population growth in Australia (thousands of persons). The rate of population growth changed significantly following the Australian gold rushes, the Great depression and World War II.

As of the end of June 2009 the population growth rate was 2.1%.[7] This rate was based on estimates of:[8]

  * one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,
  * one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds,
  * a net gain of one international migrant every 1 minutes and 51 seconds leading to
  * an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minutes and 11 seconds.

(Edit to add:)
I forgot to add that population growth of 2% annually works out to be about 4 times the total population over one human lifespan of 70 years.
1% growth = 2
2% growth = 4
3% growth = 8
4% growth = 16

So if Australia’s population growth rate remains the same exponential 2%, we’d need 4 time the sewerage works, 4 times the agriculture!, 4 times the water!, and 4 times the energy!

Our country is a desert with a skid mark of green around the outside, and we’ve paved over and ploughed up that in building bland suburban sprawl everywhere.

This is what our population growth looks like so far…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Population

Both immigration and birth affect our growth, but you can’t argue that our growth is not happening. What interests me is how we’d respond if the scientists were unanimous in declaring the Earth “full”. My guess is, we’d remain pleasantly cocooned in our own little comfortable Australian lives while Malthusian catastrophes play out across Africa and Asia. We’ll cluck our tongues at it now and then, maybe even have a sponsor-child or 2, but nothing will change. Christians don’t seem radical enough to actually help these situations any more.

I find it interesting to compare the bith rate and death rate quoted by Dave

* one birth every 1 minute and 45 seconds,
  * one death every 3 minutes and 40 seconds,

with the stats I found on the births per woman (roughly replacement).
The disparity I suppose is due to past population growth, plus people living longer.
Unless you have a (roughly) replacement birth rate you will have an ageing population. (Immigration aside.)

Something else to consider…

Population and Environment
With an annual growth rate of over 1 percent, more than 70 million people are currently being added to the world’s population each year. In the last 40 years, the world’s population has doubled from 3 to 6 billion. The high proportion of young people now entering their child-bearing years worldwide guarantees that population growth will continue at a rapid pace for some time.

Population growth taxes the earth’s natural systems. Forests and wetlands disappear so that people can grow more food. Water becomes scarce as it is diverted to urban areas and agriculture. Greenhouse gas concentrations increase as more and more people use greater quantities of fossil fuels.

Below is a series of SSI Updates on the linkage between environmental issues and the growth of human population.

  *  Scientific Integrity
  * Global Warming
  * Clean Vehicles
  * Clean Energy
  * Nuclear Power
  * Nuclear Weapons & Global Security
  * Food & Agriculture
  * Invasive Species

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/biodiversity/population-and-environment-series/

@Ros

Sorry Arthur, I don’t understand you.  Which argument?  My argument from the BCP is that deliberately having no children is against God’s purposes for marriage.

The argument against having no kids because of financial/material selfishness - the line held by Driscoll and Chandler.  I also agree with your point about it being against God’s purposes Ros, so there is another reason to oppose not having kids at all.

@Dave

I’m not sure at all how people in Australia can address the Malthusian issue.  After all we in Australia already have quite a low birth rate compared to the rest of the world ... perhaps only Europe has a lower birth rate.

@ Arther: our country is a desert surrounded by a tiny skid mark of green, most of which we’ve already destroyed.

Unless we learn to really practice desert farming (see here http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/ )
then I suggest we keep our population levels where they are now and at least get our own house in order.

Yeah I get that.  The point I was making was that we don’t have any material control over how other nations grow their populations.

Desert farming?  Now that’s new!

With the seawater greenhouse above desalinating VAST amounts of water through solar power.
* grows food in the greenhouse
* produces 5 times the water the greenhouse needs, so the surrounding area can have small amounts of irrigation
* Only requires energy to pump water from the sea into greenhouse, because solar power does the rest of the desal. This small amount of energy could come from a 100% nuclear energy grid which would be completely greenhouse free and FAR cheaper than attempting Carbon-Capture and Storage. (I personally think CCS is an excuse the coal lobby has used to justify building new power plants).
* Then use the extra water to irrigate according to the principles in the following video, and we could feed Africa from her deserts!

See “Greening the desert” which is one of my favourite projects that permaculture experts ever took on…  in the middle east.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

We could feed Africa from her fertile regions easily… if it wasn’t for the political instability. That’s the real cause of famine isn’t it?

I think so Dannii. However, I’d love to see much of the Sahara brought back to life. We made it as massive as it is, and we can help undo it. Greening the Sahara would also be part of an African energy, food, water, and jobs strategy that could revitalise the north of the Continent.

Anyone see Dick Smith’s “Population Puzzle” last night? I thought it was brilliant and gave it 9/10. I’d have given it full marks if it covered the imminent risks of peak oil, so had to deduct one mark there.

But population’s effects on cities, water, soil, suburban sprawl, house prices, our existing workforce not getting enough training by big business, and my personal bugbear: STEALING DOCTORS FROM 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES, all got a mention! Well done Dick Smith!

It was great and the Q & A afterwards was excellent, although I thought John Elliot was there as testimony to paleontology more than anything.

Ha ha! Yes, did you see the twitter?

“John Elliot: Sir Les Patterson wants his voice back!”