2B or not 2B?

Although global warming has focused mankind upon the symptoms of the problem, the central issue from the human viewpoint is the survival of mankind and escape from the inevitable mass starvation and suffering that continued apparently uncontrolled human population growth will produce, and which is already occurring at times in various parts of the world.  That is, how to limit the human population living within a limited resource such as this planet, and what a sustainable population is - given a reasonable standard of living for all and maintaining and preserving the integrity and biodiversity of life on earth.

That is, the slash and burn, feeding an ever increasing human population at all costs approach, with science and technology contributing by simply trying to keep up with the required food production by any means possible – whether safe or sustainable longer-term or not – must stop, but whilst much can be done to stop the destruction of the rainforests and coral reefs and the drive to turn all life into a machine to feed mankind in the short term, the continued drive to increase human population at all costs from many religious groups must be addressed at its heart.

It is understandable that when tribes had to compete against one another for survival, the drive to be the largest, acquire and consume the most and grow the fastest was strong, but for millennia now it has also been clear that the earth and its resources is finite, and that there will inevitably come a time when these separate groups must either conquer all others and become one or unite together under one purpose but many traditions for the good of all.  This time is now, and any further delay will simply lead to a do-it-yourself apocalypse. 

Just as the sustainability of life depends upon integrity and biodiversity, the longer-term viability of society depends critically upon preserving the integrity and diversity of thought processes within that society, and the concepts of free will, ethics and informed consent and decision-making.  In this, the many traditions must unite without subsuming their distinctive colours but in taking the best of all and the restraint that the ‘best’ action at any one time can easily change over time and one must adopt a flexible approach to considered change.

The longer-term sustainable human population with a reasonable standard of living is less than two billion, but clearly it will take over a century to achieve this, even given concerted efforts to limit childbirth to typically one or two children per family, but the sooner that community and religious leaders begin working towards this the sooner the necessary discussions and change will be achieved.  It may perhaps be likened to drink-driving.  At one time drink-driving was viewed with amusement, but within the last few decades and with significant governmental information campaigns the general attitude within the UK has changed to one of unacceptability…

Surviving for the Future

With a few hundred in each tribe and the total human population measured in the low millions, the imperative of each tribe was to survive, and so growing the population and taking over valuable resources and territory from others was the primary objective.  Allied to this was developing the science and technology with which to maximise the utility of resources and develop the most effective defensive and offensive weaponry.  

The wise ones knew that developing understanding of ‘the other,’ was critical, as ultimately they would have to live side by side within the confines of a finite planet – even if the implications of this fact where not to be communicated to the general public at this time.  ‘Go forth and multiply’ was the order of the day – to be updated when appropriate at a later stage.  They gently guided each tribe in their wisdom, but kept silent upon that which society did not yet need to or was not ready to receive. 

 

 

Just for the Record

Many societies developed complex webs of myth and legend; theories of where we had come from and where we were going.

For Native Americans, with myriad fossil records exposed on vast seams torn through history, there were cycles of life before mankind, and we were just one more in the chain.  For Aboriginal Australians, walking alone into the wilderness was both a rite of passage and a way of escaping linear time and thought completely and communing with one’s ancestors.  For others, huge fossilised bones were evidence of mythical creatures, or giant humans from some ideal past-time, that had shrunken and fallen away from perfection to become modern man.  For still more, history was that written through myths in word of mouth and skin over a few millennia, with nothing before the Word, and the assumption that we were probably halfway through history and so had just a few millennia to go at most… 

Recent estimates put Earth at around five billion years old, with mankind a quarter of a million and life on Earth becoming unsustainable around a billion years from now, although this Universe could potentially sustain life for a much longer period of time. 

 

 

Space and Time for Life

As language developed and awareness grew of more than the immediate, the need to plan effectively for the future and decide the best course of action, both as individuals and as societies, became ever more pressing.  For those near the sea or large flat plains, it became obvious to the wise ones that the world was most likely a finite sphere, and they could even estimate its size…   Knowing their limits in space, they also needed to know their position in time – how long they had existed and, given how they managed the limited resources of Earth, how much longer did they have?

 

 

Learning to Live for Life

One consequence of man’s uniquely powerful mind is that, just as the ancient texts say, as well as tending to the wellbeing of man and society, he has a fundamental responsibility to tend, nurture and protect all life on Earth.  There are a number of stages of development society has to go through in order to achieve this, which are largely determined by recognising his responsibility and that the Earth is a finite entity of finite resources, so that unchecked population growth, planetary exploitation and wanton destruction has consequences: the grass is always greener somewhere else only when there is somewhere else to go…
  

 

 

The Longer Term Sustainability of Life on Earth...

Given its relevance to the longer term sustainability of life on Earth, I thought that you might be interested in the following email, which I sent to Pope Benedict (you may have heard of him) in 2010.  Please let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions...

With best wishes,

James

 

 

Dear Your Holiness,

First, I should state that I’m Pro Life, as opposed to being solely Pro Human Life.  As you are aware, despite man’s responsibility to tend and nurture life on earth, plants and animals are now being driven into extinction at a rate hundreds of times higher than is natural, as their habitats are being progressively destroyed as the human population continues to grow rapidly.  For many centuries now, philosophers and theologians have recognised that, on a finite world with finite resources, there must be a limit as to just how large the human population can become before it has a significant impact on the global environment, leading to extremes of poverty, squalor and abject misery, and eventually threatening human existence itself through war, famine and pestilence as man consumes ever more of an ever diminishing pool of resources... 

Indeed, as recently as the nineteen sixties, with world population having tripled within little more than a century, Pope Paul VI recognised the extremely grave problem of how to limit the birth rate in order to avoid abject misery, without compromising family morality.  He agreed that public authorities could instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, but that it was for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children.  That is; it was an obligation “they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong.”[1]  At the time, Pope Paul believed that this could be achieved without the use of artificial contraception.

Since this time, however, the population has more than doubled and, now approaching seven billion, many millions are living lives of extreme poverty, squalor and abject misery; thousands of other plants and animals are being driven into extinction year on year and; as the earth’s resources are progressively exhausted, the threat to and rising cost of food and water supplies is already leading to civil unrest, and will lead to millions of deaths in land and resource disputes if the population is not to be stabilised at a sustainable level for both the short and the longer term. 

Most recently, you have implied that the use of a condom by an HIV positive husband to protect his wife from AIDS could be seen as a good act, and a step on the way to a moral life.  However, just as such an act might protect one human life from the impact of a life-threatening disease, similar acts which, aggregated over many millions of couples limit the birth rate, can protect the flora and fauna of life on earth and prevent the loss of millions of human lives through war, famine and pestilence.  Thus, such acts could both form part of man’s obligation to tend and nurture life on earth and his responsibility to prevent the unnecessary loss of millions of human lives, addressed by limiting the birth rate to the replacement rate of around two children per family on average, and these acts could also be seen as a step on the way to a moral life.

I’m sure you agree that these are important issues - and I look forward to your response…

With best wishes,

James 

Ps   Note that the Life Organisation states clearly that it is opposed to abortion.  However: it fails to mention that it views almost all forms of contraception as abortion...

 

1          Populorum Progressio Encyclical, Paragraph 37