I think Christians should be against ethanol production using up 1/5th of the grain in the US.

For once we are agreed…

I think Christians should be calling on our governments to adopt “more European than Europe” city plans that wean us off the oil.

Our cities are already built Dave, and we aren’t planning any new ones…

I’m glad we agree on the ethanol front Craig. Corn based ethanol is not even an energy source, basically fossil fuels in disguise.  (Because it has such a poor ERoEI).

But as for cities being “built”, where-ever did you get that idea? Cities are never finished. They are always changing, just ask any town planner. It’s like the old Bob Hope joke, “Sydney is a nice enough city to visit, but when are you going to finish it?” OK — that may have been about the comparative size of Sydney compared to New York, but hey? You get the idea. Cities only look “built” to us mortals with our short timelines.

I’m not sure I agree with this next guy’s goals for everyone to rezone to townships, but it shows what could be done with suburbia if we decided to go that way. (I’m more of a New Urbanism or even “Eco-city” guy myself, but the townships will have a place.)

“A normal city is changing all the time - buildings grow old and are replaced. Just look at a picture of your city fifty or a hundred years ago. If the average building life is 60 years, then the city changes at the rate of 1.6% per year.

I took as the basis for this scenario the average size of an average Swedish municipality - 36,000 inhabitants. I assumed that instead of building the houses on that same plot as the one demolished you build eco units on the periphery of the city, along the roads preferably. Then you start to ruralise at the same pace as the normal replacement rate. After 50 years, only ten percent of the city is left.”
Folke Günther

Cities are the biggest and most inefficient thing we build. Rezoning for future realities is THE single most important practical step we can take towards a sustainable future (after sustainable population policies).

Worldchanging even thinks a lot of peak oil and climate change could be solved in 20 years if we got stuck in now. See “My other car is a bright green city”.

It’s the same with last year’s “Difference of Opinion” on peak oil. Professor Peter Newman (who by the way quoted my Zadok piece for his Senate submission) basically expressed the idea that “If you build it, they will come”. It means that if we build a viable tram, train, and trolley bus system through Sydney, New Urbanism will almost always fill in around the transport hubs. New Urbanism is already in the trendiest, most creative and lively hubs of Sydney. Don’t more people deserve the right to live a happy, car free life in a trendy area like Glebe or “The Spot” at Randwick or some more “dense and diverse” areas in Parramatta or even the new CBD apartments for that matter?

But as for cities being “built”, where-ever did you get that idea?

Well, I walked out my front door, saw roads and houses, lots of buildings and traffic lights and I thought, “Yup, definitely looks like a city. And it must be a built city, because you can’t see the not-built ones...”

“Built” = past tense.
I would say that cities are always under construction. If suburban homes “only” last 60 years, it means they don’t last forever. And that means an enormous opportunity for making bold sweeping changes in the face of climate change, peak oil, and even sheer boredom and lifestyle choices against the suburban plan.

Have you been to the Reading cinema in the Rhodes complex, the one with the only Ikea in Sydney? It’s kind of a work, rest and play city design.

Now, I’ll admit that larger office buildings seem “built"… the skyscrapers seem to have a much longer lifespan than suburban homes. But even they can be completely overhauled. Think of the old IBM building in town that is now that trendy dark green apartment, that almost looks Gothic like something out of Batman. It was just another office building, now it’s trendy apartments. In the face of peak oil and climate change, we need people to be able to walk and ride to work. Mixing it up a bit with a bit of light industrial, commercial, residential and recreational all mixed in together is not only more energy efficient, it allows a greater sense of community and “fun”.

Dave,

I apologise for being flippant earlier, but

Is Aid part of The Problem?

I watched ‘The News Hour’ the other night, which detailed how rice has gone up fifty percent ( India is no longer exporting) and the price of wheat has doubled.

The greatest purchasers of grain are the UN and associated agencies -

Is this desirable?

Maintainable?

Are we simply putting off the date to an even greater disaster?

Rob

Hi Rob,
I think all the hard data we get indicates that extremely basic economic security such as we see in Kerala, India, has achieved miracles towards lowering population growth without any “anti-child” laws.

As Bill McKibben states:

Kerala is a bizarre anomaly among developing nations, a place that offers real hope for the future of the Third World. Consider: This small state in India, though not much larger than Maryland, has a population as big as California’s and a per capita annual income of less than $300. But its infant mortality rate is low, its literacy rate among the highest on Earth, and its birthrate below America’s and falling faster. Kerala’s citizens live nearly as long as Americans or Europeans. Though mostly a land of paddy-covered plains, statistically Kerala stands out as the Mount Everest of social development; there’s truly no place like it.

Counter-intuitively the big “ingredients” for reducing population growth are the very things that increase the chance of life. Security food, reliable health care, good enough education, a little economic security for retirement (with just the basics met) all help bring down population growth. Solving population growth is not some terrible draconian process. Indeed, if the first world did not steal skilled workers from developing nations (that cannot afford to lose their doctors and engineers in the first place) then population growth in Australia and America might have ceased a while ago.

So Sharon Astyk writes:

The first factor, education, works in several ways. Literacy for women benefits families in a number of ways. It increases her health (a literate woman can read material about health and hygiene practices), it increases her family’s security (if her husband dies, she can get a better job), it increases her desire to see her children receive education and it increases her political power - she can read and understand national issues. Mandatory education for all children serves to remove children from the labor pool, and makes children not producers, but consumers, and thus parents are forced to view their children in that light.

and…

Women have high literacy rates and political power. Women are comparatively well protected from rape, and can choose their husbands. A 1994 study by Yale Economist Paul Schultz found that female literacy was perhaps the most defining factor in TFR in poor nations. In India, Kerala, with a 100% female literacy rate has a 1.7 TFR, compared to a 4.1 TFR in regions with a 30% literacy rate

However First World immigration laws will not solve themselves, and strong ideologies of endless growth must be broken and laws changed for our nations to stop our population growth. It’s ideologically “easier” to deal with it in developing countries, because all we have to do is guarantee life’s basics and population drops — things which are worth doing in their own right. The things that solve population in the 3rd world are such important crusades in their own right that one greenie magazine called Gristmill writes: “Population — stop talking about it already”. Yet the reason for growth here is greed. Big property developers have just far too much influence over immigration policy. They LIKE the housing crisis, it keeps them in hot demand.

And that leads us back to green cities: I saw a lot of good stuff on Stateline tonight about the Sydney 2030 plan, acknowledging “dense and diverse” functionality, but there was not enough about bringing it out to the burbs. That’s the tough one.

Ahh Dave,

Whatever your post it never fails to brighten my day - but that I could share your optimism.

Personally, I think the best hope for humanity’s survival lies in in the colonization of the outlying planets.

Mars?

Aside from that, I’d advise investing in the Ord River region

Rob

PS Keep up the fight - many of us here appreciate your efforts

I guess my main reason for posting is that the last time I hear “population issues” actually preached on in church it was at the personal family size level, and the sermon basically suggested that smaller family sizes were a result of personal greed!

That kind of thing has got to stop.

I mean, check out today’s story on Population growth in the Philippines.

The growth dilutes economic gains and the country does not produce enough food to feed its people.

As “peak everything” unfolds, Christians should be the first to explore the social impacts of population growth and what this means for future generations. 100 million “close to” starvation now? What will the future headlines say as the Export Land Model unfolds and whole nations suddenly lose access to oil to drive their agriculture?

The 2020 summit kicked off. Where was the mention of peak oil? As Catalyst said way back in November 2005:

Peter Newman: We have lots of preparedness for terrorist attacks; but where’s the plan for peak oil? We don’t have one.

I guess my main reason for posting is that the last time I hear “population issues” actually preached on in church it was at the personal family size level, and the sermon basically suggested that smaller family sizes were a result of personal greed!

That kind of thing has got to stop.

I do think that the Bible teaches that big families are a blessing from God. It’s a bit of a dilemma. Would what it be like if this was taught side-by-side with encouragements not to get married?

Hi Dannii,
a long discussion between Gordo and Enkers pretty much found that although children are a “blessing”, the verses in question did not necessarily imply “more children means more blessed” across all space and time and biblical covenants. Paul’s references to Timothy and other trainees as his children in the Lord probably indicate the NT priorities.

If there were “blessings” with large families back then the rural situation was probably in mind, allowing more family members to work the land and all that.

After just listening to Bill Moyer’s PBS podcast on “Hunger in America”, I’m pretty sure the old agrarian equation does not apply economically today.

Lastly and very hypothetically what if governments ever introduces a “2 child per family” maximum? Do you see such strong commands in scripture to have a large family that Christians might be compelled to intentionally disobey the state should that kind of emergency legislation ever get passed?

Dave Lankshear - 19 April 2008 03:17 PM

Hi Dannii,
a long discussion between Gordo and Enkers pretty much found that although children are a “blessing”, the verses in question did not necessarily imply “more children means more blessed” across all space and time and biblical covenants. Paul’s references to Timothy and other trainees as his children in the Lord probably indicate the NT priorities.

Actually, I think our discussion found that more children always means more blessed, across all space and time and biblical covenants. The sole exception, pointed out to me by Enkers, is when those children are fools (eg Proverbs 10:1).

Well, given our respective positions, I would remember it my way and you would remember it your way, hey? Enkers wise contributions in that old, old thread start here. Readers can make up their own minds.

However, can I ask that if “more children = more blessed” does that mean Christians are commanded to have more children if possible?

Does it mean we have to disobey any future government population laws?

And what, ultimately, would it mean in the face of a very fragile and finite world? Isn’t just hoping things will work out regarding food and resources a little naive given the headlines we are are starting to see? If your reading of the bible is correct, isn’t Christianity set up to go head-to-head against the science of human ecology (how many people we can fit on this globe)?

Lastly and very hypothetically what if governments ever introduces a “2 child per family” maximum? Do you see such strong commands in scripture to have a large family that Christians might be compelled to intentionally disobey the state should that kind of emergency legislation ever get passed?

What sort of global average of children/family would produce the population change rates you’d like to see? A slowly decreasing total population would be good yes?

Dave Lankshear - 19 April 2008 04:07 PM

However, can I ask that if “more children = more blessed” does that mean Christians are commanded to have more children if possible?

I don’t really see that that’s a reasonable conclusion. there is no compulsion to receive a blessing that is offered, any more than there is to cash a cheque you’ve been given for $1 million.

However, for someone to teach that a blessing from God was not a blessing, or for a government to legislate that it not be viewed as a blessing, would be a serious sin indeed.

Dave Lankshear said:

Hi Dannii,
a long discussion between Gordo and Enkers pretty much found that although children are a “blessing”, the verses in question did not necessarily imply “more children means more blessed” across all space and time and biblical covenants. Paul’s references to Timothy and other trainees as his children in the Lord probably indicate the NT priorities.

Population over the centuries, until modern medicines like penicillin were discovered, was fairly steadily increasing with little increase. Looking at a graph of population increase will show a steady low increase until about 2 hundred years ago, and then the graph going straight up after that.

Since these modern inventions, death, particularly with children under 5 years old, has decreased markedly.

In older times (and in biblical days) a couple could have say 10 children, with only 3 surviving. These days the survival rate would be more than 95%.

So the older maxims are not applicable, really. People these days who want 2 children, have 2 children. In older times, people would have 6-8 children, and end up with 3 or more, say.

How does this world cope with this fact. Western countries are actually in decline. 3rd world countries have not woken up to the facts of child planning.

The use of powdered milk in Africa and South America meant that a mother could have a child every year. She was not breast feeding, which prevents having a child for a couple of years. But a new child would be on the way immediately after she had the first one, and so on.

Facts to ponder.