This family makes Jennifer's (and mine) look tiny
Jennifer Fulwiler has posted on why her five-child family isn’t contributing to world overpopulation, and gives six reasons why she thinks this isn’t so. She finishes:
Yes, I share your concern about the future of our planet. And I understand that your heart is in the right place when you shudder at the thought that I’m not “done,” even though I already have five kids. You probably adhere to the worthy and admirable philosophy that people should not take more than they need, and perhaps see parents of large families as needlessly creating more consumers. You think of the earth’s resources as being a static number that only goes down, and worry that every new life that’s added to the world brings that number a little lower.
But the fact is that the amount and type of resources that it takes to support human populations is constantly changing. New, more efficient ways to grow food and create energy are springing up all the time, and it’s all thanks to human innovation. More people means more ideas, more workers, more love, and more hope. And so, I don’t see my children as adding to the problem; I see them as contributors to the solutions of the future. Who knows? One of them might be your future employee, your nurse, your neighbor, or your son- or daughter-in-law. And together, I believe we’ll make the world a better place.
I think that large families are actually more efficient in terms of resource and energy use so the footprint per person is less.
God Bless
Depressing:
1. Where’s God’s will in this defence.- she oughter be busticating herself on the visble blessings she’s been given, not 3/4 apologizing
2. Well meant but defending as few as five using THEIR codewords and outright lies, eg carbon footprints, we’re figghting on THEIR turf.: innocent as a dove may be , but where’s the wisdom of serpeants?
we’ve only eleven, so, god bless her nonetheless!
and, for noncatholic semisecularists of some goodwill:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286634/elisabeth-s-barrenness-and-ours-mark-steyn
final quote of which:
The hyper-rationalists ought at least to be able to understand that post-Christian “rationalism” has delivered much of Christendom to an utterly irrational business model: a pyramid scheme built on an upside-down pyramid. Luke, a man of faith and a man of science, could have seen where that leads. Like the song says, Merry Christmas, baby.
It’s always nice to see new names
(I think, anyway)
Jennifer Fulwiler, not Simcha – Simcha had 8 last time I checked her blog – could be 9 now.
You’re right, of course. Thanks for the correction.
.
“Does raising your own football team cause world hunger?”
No.
Simplistic, patronising, question.
Simplistic, patronising, answer.
There. That’s the “problem” of world hunger sorted.
Now why don’t all those Ethiopians, Bangladeshis, Afghanistanis and people from Benin (Beninese?) and God knows where-all else, quit whining and get on with the game?
There is no hunger, no poverty in the world.There’s plenty of everything to go round. Including room to live. Always has been, always will. And anyway, it’s not God’s fault. Or Pope benedict’s.
OK. Will that do?
No.
.
Editors. Nothing’s ever enough, is it?. (Sigh.)
.
“I think that large families are actually more efficient in terms of resource and energy use so the footprint per person is less.” Thinks Chris.
There, are of course, a great deal many more feet.
All the better for trampling atheists with!
.
Wow! The lovely family in the snap above could populate their very own asteroid belt, with no help from the Bangladeshis- could they not, Joyful!
And the sooner the better, eh?
“One of them (the extra billions) might be your future employee, your nurse, your neighbor, or your son- or daughter-in-law. And together, I believe we’ll make the world a better place.”
Well, it would be hard to make it worse, thinks sceptical old Toad. Though, no doubt, we will manage. We generally seem to.
(It’s being so cheerful wot keeps him going!)
The Toady One must be the life and soul of many parties
.
Toad is guiltily aware that he has been known to tease Joyful just a teeny bit, regarding “World Overpopulation.”
This despite the ironic fact that he, like her, doesn’t give a rat’s patootie whether the world is – or is in danger of becoming – overpopulated or not.
But our respective viewpoints are somewhat different.
Toad doesn’t care because he just doesn’t care. If the planet does get dangerously overpopulated, some virulent new plague will come along and efficiently sort it all out. No need for him to raise a finger.
Joyful doesn’t care because it’s not really about babies starving in slums, it’s really about birth control. Which she is not keen on. Fair enough. It’s her choice.
As to certain parts of the world being “overpopulated,” however, Toad thinks that’s probably true.
Places where there are already too many people for the available current resources. So people there die from the lack of such.
Well, let ‘em go and live somewhere more agreeable and salubrious, thinks Toad, and no doubt Joyful shares that sentiment. New Zealand, for example, or Moratinos, (current pop. 19) Palençia, Spain.
No need to bother polluting the asteroid belt for a good while yet!
So, pax. We two can harmoniously quit head-banging.
…And get back to a subject dear to both our hearts – pedophile priests!
“Joyful doesn’t care because it’s not really about babies starving in slums, it’s really about birth control.”
…says Toad, projecting onto me his own view of anyone who thinks artificial methods of birth control cause more problems than they solve.
Toad says he doesn’t care; I doubt that this is true, because it is a kindly Toad. But I certainly care about those who are hungry, abused, neglected, frightened, left powerless and ignorant. And I am passionately convinced that the international focus on birth control as the panacea for all ills has taken money and resources away from education and basic health care – especially for girls and young women. Again and again we have seen that a focus on education and health care for girls and young women changes lives and societies. When women have the confidence and the options that education gives them; when women know that their babies are likely to survive infancy; when women have the energy to do more than simply survive, they start businesses, they send their own children to school, they build around them the networks needed to make a community – and, incidentally, they then have (on average) smaller families.
There are programmes that make a real difference in Bangladesh, Southern Sudan, Benin, and around the world, wherever they are employed to fight poverty. Microlending and community banks. The Water Project. Each One Teach One. Health clinics. The Heifer Project. Schools for Africa. These give people the power to change their own lives; to avoid the wars and famines Toad claims as the answer to the problems of too many people for the locally available resources that he calls ‘overpopulation’. But it seems to me that positive measures to support local people are the last thing wanted by the insane pundits who burble about the imminent dangers of ‘overpopulation’ on comment streams. Their motivation (not Toad’s, I hasten to add) appears to be xenophobia rather than charity. They want people in Africa, in Asia, in South America, to be sterilised – by chemical or by surgical means. They welcome the Chinese solution. They hasten to paper over the aging population, male/female imbalance, and little Emperor problems. China has solved its population problem, they tell us, ignoring the new population problems that China is about to spring on us.
.
“New, more efficient ways to grow food and create energy are springing up all the time, and it’s all thanks to human innovation. “
What this sentence doesn’t have – and obviously requires – is, “!!!!” at the end.”
A truly comforting and uplifting thought to give to the ladies in Afghanistan, or Ethiopia, or Benin, or several hundred other similar ghastly fever spots – each with a baby dead of starvation in her lap.
But it’s not God’s fault – it’s the Taliban’s, or the NATO troops, or the shockingly high price of petrol for our dear little family car. “!!!!”
Of course. (And Toad has a dear little car, too.”!!!!”)
Shocking over-posting from Toad.
Sorry. But it’s all light-hearted fun, though, as we can see.”!!!”
My dear Toad,
You appear to have a severe case of bees in the bonnet or bats in the belfrey or somesuch irritating condition. You just can’t leave it alone, such is your astonishment at the suggestion that human ingenuity can turn pigs ears into silk purses on a continuing basis. But the last few centuries clearly demonstrate that the human population continues to feed itself better while it grows in number, despite the continuing howls of protest to the contrary from experts. See for example here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/i-am-so-tired-of-malthus/
One of the reasons I have been away from JP’s for a while is I had a trip to India on business. It was wonderful to see a country thriving, and full of enthusiasm for development, technology and skills. The hope for a better future was incredibly strong. And I heard it said several times that India was looking for a better future than China, because China was already facing the problems of an aging population.
In haste,
Manus.
.
Well, Manus and Joyful,
Let Toad try to put a few things more clearly than he clearly already has.
1. he doesn’t care if the population of the world goes up to 50 billion. He doesn’t know if that number would be “sustainable,” or or not, and he doesn’t care about that either. He doesn’t care if people have families of 50 each. If they can look after them, that’s fine, and if they can’t something will turn up to solve the problem, one way or another.
He would no more dream of forcibly limiting the size of families, than he would limiting the size of a banker’s bonus!
And he doesn’t believe in telling other people what to do. (Although will proffer advice, if asked.)
He believes that no one should be forced to use birth control, or be sterilised if they don’t want.
And no-one should be prevented from using birth control (or being sterilised!) if they do want.
No doubt, we are all agreed on that.
And he’s glad to hear India is doing so nicely right now. And every Indian who wants one, has every right (if they can afford it) to his or her own little car. Big car, if you are rich, of course.
And the same with the Chinese, in fact with everyone on the planet.
Toad thinks we should be more constructive regarding food. It’s good to know the world hunger problem has been satisfactorily solved – but what are most people eating? Meal? Porridge? Tree bark? Wet sand? Not good enough.
Everyone has the right to a Big Mac each day, as enjoyed by Manus, Joyful and Toad. Why should we be the only lucky ones?
Toad had somehow got the idea that many millions of improvident people were starving to death. It’s a relief to be told differently.
Manus runs a piece suggesting Malthus was wrong. Toad didn’t realise that anyone nowadays thought Malthus was right.
“And I heard it said several times that India was looking for a better future than China, because China was already facing the problems of an aging population.” Is Manus suggesting that is a problem India will never have to face?
Why not?
(Welcome back. Toad was beginning to fear that Manus might have been eaten by starving cannibals.)
I’ve never enjoyed a Big Mac. In fact, the previous sentence is the first time I’ve ever put ‘enjoyed’ and ‘Big Mac’ in the same sentence.
But one in every seven people is hungry. The principle reason for this is poverty. There are an estimated 1.4 billion people who live on US$1.25 per day or less. They can’t afford to buy food; those who don’t have access to land where they can grow food – estimated at just under 1 billion of them – go hungry. And the reasons for their poverty are harmful economic systems, and conflict.
I agree with Toad that every one of those 1.4 billions should be able to enjoy the same opportunities as Toad, Manus, and me. And I support, in my own little way, programmes like the ones I mentioned before that are working for sustainable change. But I don’t waste time blathering on about overpopulation and birth control, as if these are going to make a blind scrap of difference.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
.
“and, incidentally, they then have (on average) smaller families.”
Joyful tells us.
Why should that be? Wonders Toad.
And by what method do they achieve this?
Joyful cites this as if “smaller families” was a desirable object.
Or so it seems to Toad.
Neither desirable nor undesirable. Just a fact. Better education for women means, on average, smaller families. I had four by birth plus my two fosters – and that’s the only family whose size is my business.
Why are family sizes lower when women have more options? Because they want fewer children, I expect. Because lower infant mortality rates mean they need fewer infants in order to have a surviving adult child; because they have other things they can do to gain the respect of their peers.
And how? Several possibilities have been suggested. But the phenomenon predates widespread access to artifical birth control, so there are clearly other factors. Delayed marriage is probably an important one. And more equality in marriage decision-making is likely to be a factor, too – giving the words ‘not today, dear’ some force.
.
“But I don’t waste time blathering on about overpopulation and birth control…”
Toad diffidently suggests that “blathering on” about the myth of overpopulation and the supposed evils of birth control are, in fact, “blathering on” about overpopulation and birth control.
“I see nobody on the road,” said Alice.
“I only wish I had such eyes,” the King remarked in a fretful tone. “To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance too!”
A hit! A very palpable hit!
.
“…such is (Toad’s) astonishment at the suggestion that human ingenuity can turn pigs ears into silk purses on a continuing basis.”
Indeed Toad never ceases to be astonished at what human ingenuity can do.
It certainly can, and does, turn pigs ears into silk purses – if the money’s right.
Because, of course, the silk purses are then bought by rich bankers with their annual bonuses. And the rest of us are left with no pigs’ ears to eat. (which are considered a nourishing delicacy in Toad’s part of the world, a bit like Veggiemite sarnies in Joyful’s)
“But the last few centuries clearly demonstrate that the human population continues to feed itself better while it grows in number..”
Says Manus, who has clearly not yet read Joyful’s post at 2.39 pm. It is surely a profound consolation for those millions currently dying of starvation to be told their plight is merely the result of poverty, rather than the failure of human ingenuity.
Are fewer people, proportionately anyway, dying of starvation now than, say, 60 years ago? In Africa, particularly? Possibly.
The total number of hungry people dropped by 100 million between 1969 and 1995 – and the world’s population grew by 2 billion in that time. Since then, the numbers have gone back up (to a high of nearly a billion in 2009, and now just above the 1969 level at 925 million), due – so the UN says – to wars, the economic crisis,the significant increase in food prices, and the neglect of agriculture by governments. The world’s population has increased by a further billion in the last 15 years.
So in 1969, nearly a quarter of the world’s population was hungry. In 1995, around one sixth of the world’s population was hungry. And today, around one seventh of the world’s population is hungry.
(‘Hungry’ in the technical sense of: “protein-energy malnutrition–the lack of enough protein (from meat and other sources) and food that provides energy (measured in calories) which all of the basic food groups provide.)
Around 36 million people die every year (according to Ekhart Zeigler, though his figures are disputed) from malnutrition, from diseases caused by malnutrition, or from diseases they could have resisted if they had not been malnourished. Around 6 million of these are children under 5 – more than half of the children who die before they are five die because of lack of food.
The total death rate (from all causes) has decreased in the last 50 years. Even in the least developed countries in the world, the child death rate has reduced by one third since 1965. Of course, it should go without saying that the death of one baby from lack of food is totally unacceptable. The mortality rate for children under five has been declining by around 1% per year for the last 20 years.
Hi Both,
It’s nice to be back. I must say the most memorable Big Mac I ever had was on my one trip Down Under (just around Melbourne, alas) where I discovered that the local twist on the global delicacy entailed a slice of beetroot. Magnificent!
We cannot possibly be seriously disagreeing with one another here, when we are by definition discussing motherhood and apple pie (for the lucky ones, anyway). But Toad, how my heart swelled with pride: you consider my powers of prophecy so strong you chide me for not having anticipated JP’s comments at 2.39pm when I was writing at 5.45am. High complements indeed – but I should have seen them coming, I suppose.
Anyway, of course the curses of poverty and hunger are curtailed too slowly, and of course the rich do their damnedest to hoover up as much as they can. But human ingenuity acts at every level to subvert the status quo. It is wonderful to see how in India IT and education is short-cutting centuries of deferred development. You’d have loved where I was staying, Toad, the local MP is a communist. Nice guy too.
Here’s a Catholic view that seems to echo some of what Toad is saying…
http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/churchs-ban-contraception-starves-families-and-damages-ecosystem
God Bless
Thanks, Chris – an excellent example of the kind of agenda-driven analysis that I’m trying to fight.
The richest 10% in the Philippines takes one third of the country’s total income, and the richest 20% outspend the poorest 20% by eight times.
Chris’ writer would be better to direct her spleen at political corruption and entrenched croneyism. For example, the government of the Philippines protects monopolies that buy farmers’ outputs at artificially low prices, and sell those same inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta was so concerned about the very real problems placed by the poor in India having more children than they could feed, cloth and house that she had her nuns teach them NFP.
The Church agrees with Toad’s point that having too many children in poor and overcrowded areas of the world is not a good thing and that limiting the number of children in such circumstances is the proper and responsible thing to do.
God Bless
The snag being, that the parents can’t (ahem) go to Congress in the meantime. Congress would mean either being open to more procreation, or, using things they did not ought to use (& sin mortally by using, which means they can’t receive the Eucharist).
Nifty – and tyrannical. Brilliant. “Use an IUD – and go to Hell” – sounds simple enough. The CC demands an heroic degree of chastity in people who are imperfect – it demands perfection of them, and makes the perfect the enemy of the good. To make matters worse, the high-ups have forgotten that the Eucharist is medicine, a means to health; not a reward for perfect conduct. Only the laity have to behave perfectly – not father/bishop/cardinal M. O’Lester: the latter can destroy lives without having to pay. There is one standard for the laity – quite another for the clergy; especially the high clergy.
The clergy are the worst people in the entire universe to be advisors in matters of marriage, gynaecology, procreation & sexual conduct generally. What does a dried-up, sexless, 80 year-old know about the problems of married women ?
a dried-up, sexless, 80 year-old man
“What does a dried-up, sexless, 80 year-old know about the problems of married women ?”
I’ve heard this argument before; interestingly, only applied to priests, not to radical nuns, marriage guidance councillors, psychiatrists, advice columnists, or the next door neighbour who knows everything.
Answer 1: it entirely depends on the 80 year-old, how open and observant he has been during his long life, and how involved he has been in the lives of his siblings, his friends, and his parishioners. But you do have a point. Some of the worst advice I’ve been given has been from priests who have suggested that I was too burdened to continue to strive for perfection, and should just give up (‘go easy on yourself; God will understand if you…’). Looking back, I see that they could not imagine the strength that women can draw on when challenged.
Answer 2: the old model of ‘Father knows everything’ is a terribly flawed way to live; but adult women should be able to take advice from wherever it comes, weigh it, make their own decisions, and take responsibility for the outcomes. I have little patience for those who blame others for the consequences of their behaviour.
Answer 3: there is a lot to be said for an ‘outsider’s’ dispassionate view. The problem, in my experience, is not that priests don’t have the experience to be advisers in matters of marriage, gynaecology, procreation, and sexual conduct – they, after all, are invited to share the lives and opinions of hundreds (and by the time they’re in their 80s, thousands) of families, hearing details that would never be shared outside of the family except to a priest. The problem is that they become emotionally involved and therefore can’t be dispassionate. It is a problem that does not admit of a solution, since it is far worse in the cases of those who are not passionately committed to the welfare of their people, either because they are cold people or because they’ve suffered burn-out.
Yes, quite so, Chris. Church teaching fully supports people being empowered to make their own choices about family size, using licit methods.
You’re right that the writer of the article you directed us to completely blurs that point, as well as ignoring the social justice issues I mentioned.
Regarding Jamie Manson’s claim that the Philippines needs articifial contraception because they can’t produce enough rice, let’s look at food self-sufficiency.
The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand produce substantial food surpluses.
Some European and some South American countries are food self-sufficient.
The rest of the world is divided into those who have the income to buy the food they need, such as Japan and China, and those who don’t, such as most of sub-Saharan Africa.
The problems, as already noted, are poverty and poor access to agricultural land.
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta also noted that not every marriage has the love and cooperation (not to mention organisational and record keeping wherewithall) to make NFP work.
What are the less than ideal marriages supposed to do ? Starve due to more children than they can feed?
Note carefully that the papal encyclicals on contraception speak of “conjugal acts” which presuppose marriages of love and cooperation. In such marriages, the Church does not have a teaching against contraception.
It is true that people frequently limit family size because of social injustice and that social injustice ought to be our focus. Which all takes time and energy to bring about. But saying that is no excuse for not offering more immediate solutions to the poor which they can apply at once without having to wait for the far off day when social justice might arrive.
God Bless
. “It is true that people frequently limit family size because of social injustice and that social injustice ought to be our focus.”
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Social injustice causes poverty which causes families to respond by limiting the number of mouths to feed.
God Bless
What are the less than ideal marriages supposed to do ? Starve due to more children than they can feed?
## This too shows that the Church’s teaching is inadequate, and cannot be lived in the world as it actually is. But the high-ups make no allowances for this:
Mat 11:30 For My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men’s shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.
Luk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Gal 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
“In such marriages, the Church” should read “In such loveless marriages, the Church”
God Bless
I agree with JP on the primary importance of social justice. But there is also a need to provide immediate relief via charity. Which is what Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta did (not seeing herself as having a particular calling to work for social justice).
God Bless
KS Jacob, in the Hindu:
“The correlation between family size, illiteracy and poverty, leads the naive and uninformed to conclude that the large number of children in each family is the cause of poverty, malnutrition and ill health. Little do they realise that for the uneducated and poor, larger the number of children, better their insurance and social security, particularly in their old age. The complete absence of social security forces the poor to rely on their children to provide the safety net. Class and caste issues interact and preclude universal explanations and call for a sensitive analysis of the context. Simplistic demographic transition models, which linked population growth to development without understanding non-European history, politics and contexts, have legitimised the argument that population control reduces poverty. The fact that poverty without social security results in increasing populations is rarely considered. Consequently, maps of “high risk” populations incorrectly identify the already marginalised groups (e.g. the poor, women, Muslims, Dalits, adivasis, etc.) for further stigmatisation. And yet, politicians, administrators and governments continue to emphasise contraception and sterilisation as the sole focus of population policies. Our current demographic approaches disregard questions of context, class, caste, religion and gender and classify people, us and them, based on narrow frameworks and value judgments. Without the provision of basic social security for the poor, the country’s population will continue to increase. CCTs as tools to bring about social change, based on a simplistic understanding of issues, are doomed to failure. “
Can’t we have both licit means for couples to use to plan their family size AND social justice, economic development, and adequate infrastructure and social welfare ?
It doesn’t have to be an either/or.
God Bless
“Can’t we have both licit means for couples to use to plan their family size AND social justice, economic development, and adequate infrastructure and social welfare ?”
Yes, precisely.
By the way, there is a positive correlation between large family size and malnutrition in urban areas, but not in rural areas – no surprises there.
That needs to be factored into the Catholic understanding of limiting family sizes by licit means. In the past, most lived in rural areas where many children were an asset and housing/feeding was not such an issue. Mass urbanisation completely changed the economics of big familes, not to mention the accompanying better healthcare which meant most infants survived and the heavy costs to educate children nowadays.
God Bless
Chris says: “Social injustice causes poverty which causes families to respond by limiting the number of mouths to feed.”
… depending on social structures and a number of other variables, as Jacob points out in the excerpt I posted above, and as Desai found in a multivariate cross-national analysis of demographic and health surveys: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2175152
My objection to the ‘overpopulation myth’ is an objection to a one-eyed focus on limiting family size as the panacea for all poverty ills. I’m sure Chris agrees with me, and is just arguing around the fringes.
Yes, I agree. And I note that the Church works for social justice and directly feeds the hungry, tends teh sick, educates the poor and also teaches NFP. A pretty good example of covering all the bases, I think.
My main objection to the overpopulation myth is that, globally speaking, there is enough wealth and food to feed everyone, but the rich have too much of it and the poor not enough.
The regional imbalances call for a flow of resources/people to address them.
God Bless
Yes, that’s my objection, too. I think the overpopulation myth diverts attention and resources from fixing the real problems of political corruption and economic injustices.
Unfortunately, Joyful’s kind and sensible words about the emancipation of women have not always been the official Catholic policy. Consider, for example, the following from Pope Pius XI’s 1930 Encyclical “On Christian Marriage.” In paragraph 74, he writes:
God Bless
Leaving aside the archaic expression of the ideas, and taking the misogynist attitudes of the time with a large serving of salt, it’s a pretty good letter, isn’t it? The term ‘subjection’ gets up my nose, of course, but as he earlier explains:
“In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family.”
Not much there to comfort the macho.
.
“By the way, there is a positive correlation between large family size and malnutrition in urban areas,”
This, from Joyful, seems an earth-shattering admission. To Toad, at least.
Big families worse off? (Maybe only in big cities, but still..anywhere outside the asteroid belt!)
Isn’t that what she’s been hotly denying all along? For what seems like years?
Obviously, the artless old amphipion is missing some vital point.
Manus will shortly get round to Toad’s point about China and India’s ageing populations, we can be confident.
Toad, appreciates the faded romanticism and tarnished glamour of some Communists particularly here in Spain, but lacks the energy, or conviction, to be one himself. (As with so many “isms.”)
“the artless old amphipion is missing some vital point”
Indeed. If I say: “green is not the only colour for grass,” either Toad or Chris will decide I think that grass is not green. If I say “I’ve seen grass that was more yellow than green,” either Toad or Chris will assure the world that I hotly deny the existence of green grass, and am devotedly committed to the position that all grass is yellow.
Being sure that you know what I’m thinking even though it is not what I’m saying makes for long comment streams, but palls after a time.
Chris – wow, that’s grim.
Toad: the nearest I can find to an amphipion in the OED entails a laterally compressed body and a large number of leg-like appendages. With googly eyes too, no doubt.
As for aging populations, with all the problems India has who can blame them if they pray with St Augustine – ‘O Lord, make us old, but not yet’, while carefully observing how it’s handled elsewhere.
Brazil’s experience in female empowerment and lower birth rates.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/girl-power/gorney-text
God Bless
.
“Being sure that you know what I’m thinking even though it is not what I’m saying makes for long comment streams, but palls after a time.”
Complains Joyful, clearly “losing her rag,” as we Londoners say.
” Well, J, all you have to say is, “Enough! Uncle! I can’t stand any more of this existential nonsense!” and Toad, for one, will gracefully withdraw.
And get a proper job.
A lot of twaddle, about grass being green does not, although it muddies the waters, come close to dealing with Toad’s question re, “Big families in big cities.”
And he is rapidly coming to agree with her that all this to-ing and fro-ing is beginning to become dreary, and that this is “where he came in.” .
Nor has he the faintest idea, other than what Joyful writes, what she really thinks.
Doesn’t stop him guessing, but we all do that, don’t we? No? Oh, really?
But then we are back in Wonderland (or Catholicism, or Atheism, or Scepticism, or Obscuranticism, or any other naughty old “ism,”) yet again.
Where words mean exactly what we want them to mean.
No more, no less.
We decide.
Nor, as he has latterly become overfond of saying, does Toad give a damn.
This whole farago is in grave danger of becoming boring for us all, as we all must agree. Particularly Manus.
And Toad is not keen on boredom.
That will be OK when he’s dead.
Compulsory, very likely, if the Catholics are right..
I apologise for being snippy. But I have never denied that poverty and hunger exist, or the reality that people with too few resources can starve, and so can their children. When you claim that I’ve denied that big families are worse off – in those specific circumstances – you’re going way, way, way beyond anything I’ve ever said. In fact, as far as I can recall, I haven’t ever talked about family size in urban ghettos and slums. I’ve talked about the lack of resources being the result of poverty, ignorance, and injustice. And I’ve certainly been very critical of those who think all it will take to solve the problems of the developing world is to throw western contraceptive technology at the issues.
A lot of twaddle, about grass being green
## Of course it’s not green – that is a Kantian construct, imposed upon the phenomena to make them accessible to our intellects.
Words are constructed too – so H-D wuz right. They mean what they are constructed to mean. If the word “grass” is on some far planet the word “Woozle”, and “grass” is the Abominable Word, then “Woozle” will signify there what “grass” signifies here – in whole or in part.
.
Odd you should start like that, Joyfulbecause Toad sat down here with the intention of appologising to you. Yesterday was the 200th birthday of Dickens, also St/Sir Thomas More’s (Pay attention, CP&S!) and finally Toad’s.
So Toad was feeling a bit snitty (or snippy) himself.
Old age, though generally exciting, can also be snitty-making.
Too true, Toad. As my aching bones thaw out this chilly (supposedly summer) morning, I hope your birthday was a pleasant one, and that you enjoy – in good health – as many more of them as you yourself wish.
Ah well, so I get a bit of prophecy right in this thread at least: ‘O Lord, make me old, but not yet’.
And a happy birthday to the whole saintly lot of you.
A thought for another thread – or perhaps you’ve already covered it, JP, you’ve looked at so much over the years: the argument that eternity with God would be boring, as suggested by Toad a little earlier.
I certainly have a different concept of Heaven to the one that Toad has.
.
In brief, Manus, Heaven, as described by Dante, sounds hellish.
To Toad anyway.
Nobody else seems to have even tried. Milton, maybe?
Many efforts – especially in the NT Apocrypha. Milton’s is not as heavenly as Dante’s, IMO. Dante’s Inferno *is* “Hellish”. As it should be. Macaulay’s essays on Dante & Milton are always worth reading
There have been a great many attempts to “describe” or “depict” Heaven.
The oldest are Mesopotamian:
the Etana poem is mostly about a journey to heaven;
the Adapa poem is another;
There are Egyptian texts, often about the Pharaoh, which brings them under Egyptian royal theology. And there are Egyptian descriptions of the afterlife.
1-3 Enoch are books that have a lot about heaven. If you want something lighter, there is Ariosto’s description in the “Orlando Furioso” of the journey of Orlando to the moon; which is a parody of parts of Dante. If you want something earlier, there is Lucian’s “Icaromenippus” & “True History”, both about journeys to the moon. And there are visions of heaven in Bede and many other authors. Strange to think that “Star Trek” has such an ancestry. (Oriental stuff is not my thing – sorry
)
For a perfect contrast, try Lewis’s Great Divorce. Hell, Heaven, and a regular bus service in between. Marvellous.
Mine is to be the 57th comment? My word, population issues certainly arouse strong feelings.
Having a friend round for a drink and a talk is a great pleasure. Hosting fifty in a small house is hellish. So we can all agree that people are “good things”, and that (for a given context) there can be too many of them.
But to my mind the problems we face feeding and housing our population of 7 billion aren’t caused by lack of planetary capacity; they’re caused by inefficient and often unjust resource management.
Chris said:
Social injustice causes poverty which causes families to respond by limiting the number of mouths to feed.
That would sound like a rational chain of cause and effect. Actually to the best of my knowledge poverty generally goes hand in hand with large families. As life expectancy, literacy rate, general standard of living, and female empowerment go up, the birth rate generally drops. Europe over the last 500 years is a case inc point.
BTW I’m not saying we should limit family size to fight poverty. Just noting that family sizes tend to shrink as living standards improve
What I’ve been saying is that we need to fight poverty and family size will shrink.
Although that isn’t the only factor, of course, Average family size rises the further you are from a major urban centre (which makes sense, since kids are more of an asset and less of a liability the more land you have to work), and it also rises the more devout you are (non-religion specific, however).
Only 57 ? One thread largely on gay issues made it up to at least 160 posts. This post is number 75, apparently.
I agree with you entirely. And I agree that the term “over-population” distorts the terms of the debate. The problem isn’t too many people on Earth per se. And such that over-population is a potential problem, the fight against poverty is the solution. And as I said a couple of months ago, the most important factor in reducing chronic poverty in a society is the empowerment of women. Meaning education for girls, employment opportunity and marital choice for women, etc. — All of which, to be fair, the Church is for, so the Church can be seen as a positive force in the ‘over-population” controversy. (You might say some oil rich nations are counter-examples to that, but I think it generally applies)
.
As this topic is fated never to go away, Toad’s mention of “his little car” was meant to point out that population growth is not just a matter of feeding the burgeoning little fellows. And as we on the planet all get wealthier, with our nice big families, we will naturally want our own little car each. And central heating or air conditioning in our own little houses.
Just like Toad has already got. When you consider what this will mean in terms of billions of Indians and Chinese alone.. well.
And what are we in the West going to tell them? It’s fine for a family of four in Toledo, Ohio, to own and run four cars (this is the norm all over the States) but it’s not all right in Bombay?
Look at the picture on this story. How many cars do that lot have between them now? How many will they have in five year’s, ten year’s, time?
Good to hear from Jerry. Hope all is well.
Yes, exactly, Toad. The earth cannot support the even current population in the style to which middle-class Americans have become accustomed. But such a lifestyle is neither necessary for happiness nor consonant with dignity. Or so I believe. A lifestyle that requires four cars for a family of four is a lifestyle out of balance, lived on the run.
Furthermore, we not only need to live within our means as a species, we need to leave room on Earth for other living things.
.
“A lifestyle that requires four cars for a family of four is a lifestyle out of balance, lived on the run. “
How many cars does the Joyful family currenly run?
How many will it run when the youngest is old enough to drive?
How about the happy family in the photo?
Maybe these are not fair questions.
(Don’t see why not, though.)
You print all these appalling figures as above, and yet it seems to Toad that you and Manus, (and others, to be sure) are constantly extolling the wonder and glory of a world where more and more people are getting richer, happier, and better fed.
1. One
2. The youngest person in the household is 62.
3. No idea.
In our 40 years of marriage, we’ve owned two motorbikes (consecutively), seven cars and two vans. We got the first car while we still owned the second motorbike. Twice, each time for around a year, we owned two cars at once. We currently own one car.
“It seems to Toad that you and Manus, (and others, to be sure) are constantly extolling the wonder and glory of a world where more and more people are getting richer, happier, and better fed.” says Toad
I am wealthy by any reasonable measure – living in a modern house, with modern appliances, and on nearly two acres of land. I have money for food and clothing, and enough after paying for needs to pay for one or two wants. And yes, I do want a world where the poor are richer, happier, and better fed, and I do believe it to be possible.
I take the carbon footprint calculation (with all its flaws as a climate change predictor) as a reasonable proxy for consumption. It measures the amount of energy required to keep you in heat, housing, food, clothing, and travel. The USA per capita carbon footprint is 17 tonne per year. In NZ, our per capita carbon footprint is around 8 tonne. In some sub-Saharan African, the per capita carbon footprint is under 1 tonne. The global average – the amount that it would be fair for each person to have if resources were shared fairly – is 4 tonne. Mine is under the global average at 3.5 tonne, and my husband’s is lower at 2.75 tonne (he doesn’t travel for six hours per week by train, and he doesn’t fly to and from Auckland with me when I go to help Mum).
So, yes, I want others to have the same level of wealth as I enjoy myself. Including those who currently consume at twenty times my rate..
You come across as very youthful (but *not* adolescent)
Seriously.
Age is an artificial construct. Except when it comes to my knees.
.
Toad is tempted to suggest.
1. “Over-population” is a myth.
2. There are too many people on this planet for comfort.
But he won’t.
More interesting stuff here – I’m not especially advocating its veracity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/the-simon-erlich-wager-at-seven-billion-people/
.
“2. The youngest person in the household is 62 “
Dopn’t get it, Joyful. Thought you had young kids.
What is Toad misunderstanding now?.
However, he still stubbornly thinks there are more people on this planet than is good for it, even now.
Whether they can all get enough to eat to survive is the tip of the iceberg.
He is also prepared to agree that he, for one, is surplus to global requirements.
He consumes but does not produce.
He has no intention of doing anything about it though – first because he is selfish, and second because his dogs would be upset, for a minute or two.
Not cherry picking, but a very disturbing projection in Manus’ “whatsup” entry was that there will be countless more young people in Africa very soon. As far as Toad can see, assuming they have enough to eat (no problem!) – they will also have nothing to do.
Except make trouble. And who can blame them? Toad would do the same if he were one of them.
In the States, they’d pass the time working on their cars.
(No, these ramblings have nothing (or not much) to do with “overpopulation.”)
We had our divorced daughter and her two children living with us for several years (and I started this blog while they were still here). Perhaps that is what misled you.
Well, in India, from what I saw, everyone seemed to be working on their motorbikes. And pretty soon, everyone everywhere will be busy polishing their Facebook page, won’t they?.
Next week, to the back of beyond in Russia. I’ll report back on what everyone’s doing there.