All true Ken, however there’s another perspective to it. 3rd world countries that still have high infant mortality have high population growth precisely because — as you suggested — one could not be “reasonably sure” that your children would survive. Then there’s a woman’s education and empowerment to make this choice: which is of course part of the reason the UN’s generalisation works. (Every 3 years of education a woman receives = 1 less child). The decision to have less kids is also partly a function of economic security in old age (not seeing kids as future farm labourers or your “retirement package").

Gordon wrote:

However, for someone to teach that a blessing from God was not a blessing,

I don’t think I said children were not a blessing. However, are there any “children are a blessing” verses in the NT? I think that might be a clue. The emphasis in the OT may have been caught up also in the building of the Kingdom of Israel. In the NT the whole notion of the kingdom of God is overturned, and so now we have “children in the Lord”.

or for a government to legislate that it not be viewed as a blessing, would be a serious sin indeed.

Then Christianity is most definitely against caring what state we leave the planet in for our kids and grandchildren. We are allowed to “steal from the future”.

I thought I’d only have this trouble with the Catholics. God built I=PAT into His creation. The P in I=PAT is out of control… yet He also tells us not to do anything about it?

So again, some of the questions I anticipate this generation will need to answer, even if this particular forum doesn’t.

What is a Christian response to the many scientific claims that we cannot feed the current human population?

How does Christianity respond when the scientists are saying the earth is “full”?

Is there any way Christianity can help prevent the dangers of an overpopulated world (such as the vast majority of ecosystems have been paved over or ploughed up)?

Or is Christianity set to go head-to-head against the science of human ecology (how many people we can fit on this globe)?

I guess my main reason for posting is that the last time I hear “population issues” actually preached on in church…

A church that preaches on “population issues” as such is probably not a church I would attend.

(Sighs) It was a major evangelical church, the sermon was not actually on population but naughty, wicked, greedy Christian parents that use family planning to have smaller families.

You’d be very pleased to know that the sermon soundly spanked these naughty, wicked, greedy Christian parents for being too materialistic. I wish the sermon had even remotely considered population issues, but no… it just made it worse. The sermon was a standard “more children = more blessed” Sydney evangelical “lifestyle” attack. Have as many as you can, it’s your gospel duty to populate the earth with Christians!

(OK, that last part may not have been intentional by the speaker, but it’s the way these matters often come across.)

A church that preaches on “population issues” as such is probably not a church I would attend.

Everything in balance. I’m sure Dave would say that the Gospel is still the top priority. However if the world is in such a precarious position as Dave is suggesting, then it should at least rate a mention occasionally? Would you go to a church that discussed any other social problems? These issues are like good works, but for a society. We all know what Luther taught us (sorry, Jesus and Paul), but it can be helpful to have it beat into us too. Unless you’re saying you wouldn’t go to a church which ever taught application?

(Though of course if it’s not as serious as he suggests it shouldn’t rate a mention. If you don’t think the evidence leads to Dave’s conclusions take him up on that.)

Dave Lankshear - 19 April 2008 08:54 PM

In the NT the whole notion of the kingdom of God is overturned, and so now we have “children in the Lord”.

I’m unfamiliar with this idea. Can you point to the verses that you’re basing this view on?

Sorry, poorly worded. I was re-referring to Paul’s more affectionate mannerisms in describing certain disciples.

Philemon 1:10
I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

Philippians 2:22
But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.

But I asked a question first.

However, are there any “children are a blessing” verses in the NT? I think that might be a clue. The emphasis in the OT may have been caught up also in the building of the Kingdom of Israel. In the NT the whole notion of the kingdom of God is overturned, and so now we have “children in the Lord”.

Gordo, I answered yours, and.....

Come on everyone, didn’t Jason and I repeatedly point to the experts who said all this was going to happen? Didn’t we warn that in a world that’s already losing 100 thousand km2 of arable topsoil a year, we just can’t afford to grow biofuels? Didn’t we warn there were too many people using too much stuff too quickly? Don’t us lay-Christian peakniks deserve a theological and ethical response to the hypothetical supposition that the earth might one day be “full”?

So my questions again:

What is a Christian response to the many scientific claims that we cannot feed the current human population?

How does Christianity respond when the scientists are saying the earth is “full”?

Is there any way Christianity can help prevent the dangers of an overpopulated world (such as the vast majority of ecosystems have been paved over or ploughed up)?

Or is Christianity set to go head-to-head against the science of human ecology (how many people we can fit on this globe)?

I thought I’d better bump this thread up again because:-

The Wall Street Journal says Maybe It’s Time for Americans to Start Stockpiling Food.

US giant Walmart rations rice stocks

US RETAIL giant Wal-Mart is rationing rice sales to protect dwindling supplies as the global price skyrockets and producers such as Australia struggle to keep up with demand. The drastic move is the first time that food rationing has been introduced in the US.

As Will Smith said in Bad Boys 2, “This thread just got real.”

Hi Dave

It may have just gotten real. It may have been real for a long long time. I think the issue is when it will be real for us in the west. It is always going to be the poor who will suffer first it seems, and because those who are suffering from growth/peak oil/climate change or whatever it is live far far away, it will never seem real to us, or at least THAT bad.

That’s my opinion, and I think it sucks

Whoops. My opinion doesn’t necessarrily suck (though coud be very wrong), but were my opinion to be true, I think that sucks

Good point Geoff, and it was probably my semantics. Of course 1 billion people are in different states of poverty and hunger… I guess this 100 million “more” article is focusing on the economically “more important” people to our western economies. You know, the poor who make our Nike shoes for $1 a day when the shoes sell for $150 to $200 a pair. Those poor that we need. The other unwashed masses, well, they’re just a right-off anyway. But American’s stockpiling food in the WSJ? That’s unacceptable!

I’m totally with you that human mismanagement already starves millions a year, and other than having had 2 Compassion children for 18 of the last 20 odd years, I don’t know what else I can do. It REALLY sucks.

I guess the bottom line is I’m selfish. I don’t like the sound of a Great Depression (or worse). I don’t want that kind of poverty to spread worldwide just because we mismanaged most of our critical resources. And maybe, trying to rationalise my selfishness, what chance is there for the poor if the uber-rich nations collapse into poverty as well? If any nations have the manpower and money to run UN peace-keepers, it’s our rich western nations. What hope is there for infrastructure in 3rd world nations if we go under financially as well?

Dave Lankshear - 20 April 2008 08:40 AM

Sorry, poorly worded. I was re-referring to Paul’s more affectionate mannerisms in describing certain disciples.

I don’t really see how any of the verses you quote prove that children stop being a blessing once we reach the New Testament. Indeed, the verses don’t make any sense unless you assume that children are a blessing—because if they aren’t, then it is hardly affectionate of Paul to compare Timothy or anyone else to a son.

If we were really to believe that children were no longer a blessing because of the new covenant, then marriage itself (which was given for the purpose of producing children) would also have ceased to be a blessing. You could then argue, along similar lines, that because we are now married to Christ under the new covenant (Eph 5:32), then we have no more need of earthly marriages. The closest we get to such a suggestion is 1 Corinthians 7, but even there Paul doesn’t take the argument that far.

Christians don’t stop getting married and enjoying having their own children just because of the new covenant. Reliable sources tell me that not even you have been persuaded to give up on marriage and children!

All true.

I wasn’t arguing that the NT robbed any sense of the specialness of kids, just that the focus seems to be outward, not inward, worldwide not national.

Israel had the promises to Abraham to fulfill, and that was family and nationally orientated.

Jesus rocks up and says he can make sons of Abraham from the very stones themselves. Whoomff!! There goes the “national growth and prosperity” thang — the focus just changed, big time. Abraham’s promises, large families, national identity… all are translated into a higher order that lets Paul talk in terms of 1 Cor 7. In other words, I can grow God’s kingdom without having any children if that’s my gift and calling in life.

Children are a blessing. So wouldn’t it be kind to plan ahead a little for them? Or are we going to just repeat the mistakes of the 24 great civilisations that collapsed before us, some in fantastic and gruesome displays of anarchy and barbarism? It’s just maths. If we grow at the current rate there’ll be one of us for every meter of ground in just 780 years.

What is a Christian response to the many scientific claims that we soon will not be able to feed the human population because there will be too many of us? How will the church respond when scientists eventually declare that the earth is “full”?

Is there any way Christianity can help prevent the dangers of an overpopulated world? Or is Christianity set to go head-to-head against the science of human ecology (how many people we can fit on this globe)?

What other ethical considerations does this raise?

Gordon.... I… um..... have to admit something I just found out. (Clears throat, blushes.... clears throat again).

I’ve been saying that peak oil is probably 2010 based on a few of the top oil people I read… and that the decline starts to hit and really bite after peak, ok? That’s why I’ve been talking about a Great Depression starting over the next 5 years.

Well, I just noticed ASPO Australia’s peak estimates have shifted back a bit. Commenting on the 2020 summit, they state…

The Peak Oil, oil crisis, and petrol rationing plans are topics that should have been on the agenda at the 2020 summit.  Bruce Robinson, Convenor of ASPO-Australia, says that governments are ignoring the probability that global oil shortages will start to hit Australia in the next few years, just as our own production continues to decline.  We could be facing a crippling oil trade deficit of $100 million pa by 2015, four times the figure mentioned by Martin Ferguson, unless we can take serious steps to reduce our oil vulnerability. Many bnght people from the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil nominated for the summit, but none were selected.

ASPO is concerned that the threats that Peak Oil poses are being systematically ignored and there will be chaos if oil shortages hit Australia.  We should plan well ahead for petrol droughts and oil crises, just as we do for cyclones and bushfires.  Oil vulnerability assessment should be a routine risk management feature, not a rarity.  The most probable date for Peak Oil is 2012 (+/- 5 years)

That of course means that the optimistic scenario from ASPO themselves is way out at 2017. Of course, this is their most optimistic scenario for world peak production but does not break down the Export Land Model which shows a hypothetical 3% per annum in world oil production to be fairly irrelevant because exporting nations “switch off quickly” after peaking.

So I just wanted to again agree that we don’t know the future. I also wanted to agree that human wisdom is limited. I also wanted to emphasis that I still think we have a “proverbial” wisdom by which we take the information we have at hand — limited as it is — and plan according to that. It just seems to me that there should be a little bit more outrage over ABARE’s mishandling of this information. If this is the final oil crisis, I tend to feel it’s immoral that the public and corporations and state governments don’t know, simply because one bureau doesn’t want to do a little audit work.

Dave Lankshear - 10 May 2008 06:10 PM

Gordon.... I… um..... have to admit something I just found out. (Clears throat, blushes.... clears throat again).

I’ve been saying that peak oil is probably 2010 based on a few of the top oil people I read… and that the decline starts to hit and really bite after peak, ok? That’s why I’ve been talking about a Great Depression starting over the next 5 years.

Well, I just noticed ASPO Australia’s peak estimates have shifted back a bit. Commenting on the 2020 summit, they state…

The Peak Oil, oil crisis, and petrol rationing plans are topics that should have been on the agenda at the 2020 summit.  Bruce Robinson, Convenor of ASPO-Australia, says that governments are ignoring the probability that global oil shortages will start to hit Australia in the next few years, just as our own production continues to decline.  We could be facing a crippling oil trade deficit of $100 million pa by 2015, .

Dave,

$100milion pa is not a ‘crippling oil trade deficit’. It is $4.50 each.

James