Since Caroline has said that she never intended to debate the environment with her post, titling it instead "For you entertainment" I thought it might be better to start a new post.
Karl has brought up the Genesis injunction to "increase and multiply" several times. I find the injunction intriguing. All of the living things God created, all, had (have) the urge to increase and multiply. Humans are no exception. They all do this because of the hormones God has given them -- including humans. But the Genesis account singles out fish, birds and humans "God blessed them and said:' Be fruitful and increase in number'". Conspicuous by omission are land animals.
So why did God, or the writer of Genesis find it necessary to place this injunction in the account, and why the conspicuous absence? I find it hard to believe that Adam and Eve needed the injunction in order to know what to do, so there must have been another reason. And, of course the fish and the birds (and the land animals for that matter) never bothered reading Genesis, so what is written there was not for their benefit. So I conclude that this injunction has nothing to do with whether human's should marry (Paul advises against marriage in any case), nor with whether married couples ought to have no children, two children, or 20 children. It carries a different significance. I don't know what that significance is at this point, but want to think about this.
Animals do not have the ability to anticipate the consequences of their procreation. Humans however do. They may err in their anticipation, nevertheless what they anticipate affects their actions. God made them that way. I find it hard to get my mind around the idea that in a full earth, the expectations God has of humans, even with respect to procreation, differ from his expectation of animals. That we can't get it right, may alas be part of the human condition.
Interesting point, on why the first part of Genesis instructs fish, birds, and humans to "be fruitful" but not land animals. I do believe the words are chosen very carefully, and I don't have an answer yet as to the wording in chapter 1. However, Genesis 8:17, after the flood, does tell birds, fish, humans - and land animals - to be fruitful and multiply.
ReplyDeleteWhy Genesis (and again in Leviticus) tells us multiple times to "be fruitful and multiply" is interesting. Be fruitful and multiply is the only instruction God gives us in Genesis chapter 1 so I have to think it is important. I have a hard time taking the Bible and these words serious, if i were to also believe that the world has more people than the earth's resources can handle. God would have a pretty sick sense of humor if that was the case. Clearly we still may be consuming too much (I agree that is a separate argument) but I find it disturbing that all too many people believe population control is the answer to reducing world poverty.
Why does the Bible say to be fruitful so often? I am not sure i have a great answer, but here is my thought. I do believe it is human nature to be selfish, something clearly God does not want. Single people have less restrictions in being selfish, as they do not have to care for others. Certainly having children limits time to ourselves to travel, read, etc. If we look at western society, there is a high correlation with those that take religion seriously having more children, while secular people have far fewer children. As a result, i think that helps create a more selfless world. Anecdotally, I find the reasons for many secular people not having children is that they want their freedom to do what they want. Perhaps that is why God wants us to multiply, or perhaps it is simply more macro that He wanted those that believe in Him to increase as a % of the world. Again, I admittedly don't have it well thought out, despite thinking that the instruction by God is important.
As a final point, I do read Genesis as saying that God created the world for humans, not for humans and animals. I believe animals are here for us to use and enjoy responsibly. Clearly when God destroyed the world in the flood because it was evil, he also destroyed most of the animals as well (animals clearly are amoral and not evil) which tells me that without humans, animals have no worth (otherwise why not destroy humans with a disease that sparred the animals). Clearly we both agree that we need to be good stewards of the animals, but I believe that many secular people find the comment that animals are on earth for humans - a repulsive comment. They think it is ours to equally share, which is how I read the Bolivian proposal to the UN.
“I have a hard time taking the Bible and these words serious, if i were to also believe that the world has more people than the earth's resources can handle. God would have a pretty sick sense of humour if that was the case.” Indeed! God has a pretty sick sense of humour if that is the case. And we don't believe he has. So either, we are misreading the biological indicators around us, and that there actually is room for a lot more growth in the world's human population than seems to be the case, or we are misreading the scriptures when we interpret them to say we all ought to have numerous children.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me, Karl, you are going with the first, whereas I am going with the second. The original audience for “be fruitful and multiply”, whether that be Adam and Eve, Noah and his immediate descendents, or the Jewish nation much later, was under external threat, real or perceived. They needed encouragement, and that is what the statement “be fruitful and multiply” was. As I said earlier, I do not think this instruction was needed so people would know what to do. God gave them hormones to take care of that aspect! So I do not take a statement directed towards a threatened population to be normative for a population that is already over consuming. Specifically, “be fruitful and multiply” would be a statement of encouragement to a Jewish people who have just survived the holocaust, a Mennonite people who have just arrived in Canada or Paraguay after the horrors of Stalinist Russia and WWII, Irish immigrants who have just survived the Irish famine, Bosnians who have just regained stability after assault by Serb forces, etc. So a Peter Dyck, have successfully helped a traumatized group of refugees successfully escape devastated Europe and arrive in Canada, could hypothetically make a speech to them: “Be Fruitful and Multiply”. But it would not be fair to construe Peter to be meaning that this is what he wished for them at all times in the future. You get the picture. I do not think it is directed toward a people who are already caught up in a culture of over consumption.
So I don't know where you are hearing people call for population control as the answer to poverty. I don't hear it. I hear many people involved with poor people saying that the technology educated people take for granted, that enables us to have sexual intimacy without necessarily producing babies should also be available to the poor women of this world WHO WISH TO USE IT. This I hear. The Chinese have there population growth policies. They will need to evaluate whether that has worked for them. I am not convinced we should be evaluating that from our arm chairs. Sure we hear anecdotes of oppression in this regard (and I believe them), but I have no idea whether the oppression is in fact wide spread or isolated. We hosted a Chinese student one year. She spent a great deal of time in our home. She was a single child. She certainly did not think the one child policy was oppressive. But that is just one anecdote. In any case I do not hear a clamouring that this policy be applied in other countries. The apartheid regime in South Africa made an attempt to limit black population growth. The policy was discontinued. So I don't hear what you are hearing.
I certainly am not an advocate of population control, but not because the bible says “be fruitful and multiply”. I simply have not yet seen a way of achieving planned population levels that respects human rights. For me, a respect for human rights trumps the need for population planning.
Politics would enter an exciting era, if we who are educated and can understand, would acknowledge that perpetual growth is a cancer, and that because of that growth needs to be controlled. If we could accept that concept, rather than fear it, we could then begin a wholesome debate as to how we deal with it.
I do puzzle why, the very people who find even a discussion of population control abhorrent are opposed to immigration. To me this seems inconsistent.
Just to your earlier point, Karl, linking the interest in ethanol based fuel and the environmental movement. As you know we are in the midst of an election campaign. We asked all of the local candidaes to give thier view on whether potential food should be converted to bio-fuel. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP equivocated. This the Green Party candidate response: "NO, because we burn more calories in producing the fuels than the fuels give us! It is completely non sustainable and a short sighted view of alternative energy. It is unconscionable when so many people are starving in the world."
ReplyDeleteWell very enoucraging that the Green Party has that view. It is rare that I see something I deem as positive from the modern environmental movement, and the comments on bio-fuel is a positive surprise for me.
ReplyDeleteI am not comfortable yet that either of us know the intent of "be fruitful and multiply". Your logic on its intent is reasonable, but being the first commandment in the Bible, for man in general, I believe its intent was not situation specific.
I also disagree that perpetual growth is a cancer, and I think as we have already debated prior, that such claims don't appear to be born out by the evidence. Do you have any data suggesting this? I don't believe it is common sense, because people throughout history have been claiming the world is over-populated, yet we now have over 6+ billion people with no data i have seen suggesting a larger percentage are starving than ever before.
So if the earth is now not full, how much can it handle? 10 billion, 20 billion, 100 billion? And what will be the indicator that it is full? Starvation? If so, how many need to starve? If not starvation, then what?
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the limit is, but seems those crying wolf for 4000 years of over-population should have the burden of proof in demonstrating it.
ReplyDeleteYou could fit the entire world population in half the land area of Manitoba, if the density was that of Manhattan - leaving half the province, and the rest of the world empty of humans. I am not suggesting this proves anything (as Manhattan isnt self-sustaining), but it does put things in a bit of perspective on how much land exists.
I maintain that as long as commodity prices adjusted for inflation continue to be stable or decline over time, it shows technological progress is improving faster than human consumption. As long as we don't do structural things to halt technological progress generally (clearly there are issues like stem cell research which I think present ethical issues) over-population does not concern me. Currently the world is growing just above the population sustaining level (2.1 births per female keeps it stable, and we are at 2.2), and the slowest in 200 years (not sure prior to that as there is not good data). So the data suggests little to be concerned about with respect to population growth.
Your faith in the human ability to innovate on the one hand, and the market to reflect reality on the other is, to my way of thinking, absolutely astounding. Its a faith I don't share. I would be surprised if you would find anyone grounded in biological science sharing. I think such faith is unique to economists.
ReplyDeleteFor data I suggest that there have been famines throughout history. Just because we have not had serious famine in the western world in the last 200 years, does not mean history won't repeat itself. For data I suggest you examine the area at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Many archeologist believe that this may be where civilization began – where the cultivation of the major grains we depend on began. Today little grain is produced there. For data examine northern Africa, which was the bread basket of the Roman Empire. Check out the Mayan civilization. Easter Island. Ethiopia. History is replete with instances where there was more than enough food at one time, and now is not.
Modern industrial agriculture is built entirely on a house of cards. The first one likely to fall is cheap energy but it could be another one. If you think it will make any difference to your belief system, I could document for you other biological reasons why modern agriculture, aka our food supply, is built on a house of cards. Your faith is that if these constraints were significant, the market would show it. I don't share that faith.
Incidentally (it does not affect the argument) I do wonder where the figures 2.1, and perhaps more significantly 2.2 come from. I can't imagine how one would collect such data! Percent population increase comes straight from census data, but this one I don't know. Implicit of course is that the children born, live to reproduce, and of course whether they reproduce at 15 or at 45 makes a huge difference. So how do you measure that? I just have never seen serious population watchers using such figures before. I suspect it is an extrapolation from percentage increase data, and not data actually collected. In any case, it makes no difference to the argument.
I don't have that much faith in humans and technolgy. I understand we have gone through many calamaties, and I believe we will go through many calamaties going fowards. But I believe that free markets will do a better job minimizing the effects, as I have no faith in the alternatives of central planning/government control/high regulations. But importantly, when looking at the data, world population growth does not appear to be an issue today. In fact, extrapolating current trends, the world population will likely begin declining in the next 50 years as it is barely sustaining itself today.
ReplyDeleteFertility rates that I include (the 2.1 and 2.2), are better at understanding growth potential as it ignores changes in life expectency and other data not providing as clear a picture. If you prefer % population growth stats instead of the fertility stats I presented, world popluation is now growing 1.2% per year - the lowest in at last 60 years.
I would be interested in your data on how food supply is built on a house of cards. If it is long, I would need some time to look over. I believe I will find the data useful, and that you and I would perhaps only disagree on the best way to minimize the threat of topping that house of cards.