Most of my life, I have heard dire warnings of population explosion. I remember TV ads growing up warning that the world population would soon be over 4 billion. And in my lifetime, the population has exploded, both locally and worldwide.
However, most European countries are not producing sufficient children to reproduce themselves and a few, such as Italy and Spain, and parts of eastern Germany, are experiencing an especially steep decline.
According to a recent New York Times article, women in Europe want more babies than they're having. Not surprisingly, in the countries that provide the most robust supports for young parents, such as Norway with 54 weeks paid maternity leave, the birth rate is highest. In the U.S., the birth rate is higher than in Europe despite almost no maternal benefits, in part, the Times article theorizes, because our job market is more flexible than in Europe, allowing women to drop in and out with fewer penalties
I wonder if we are wrong in thinking overpopulation is the problem. Perhaps we're on the brink of a sharp drop in population.
Reproductive control is spreading to developing countries such as India and places in Latin America, where the birth rate has dropped off markedly, according to the Times. China, of course, has been aggressively pursuing population control for decades.
There are other factors. For example, AIDS is devastating Africa. Some, like the late Dr. John Lee, argue(d) forcefully that environmental damage is leading to chromosome damage that will cause fertility to plummet. Another issue is the amount of estrogen poured into the ecosystem in the form of fertilizers and growth hormones. High estrogen is connected with low sperm counts.
So for all our fears of overpopulation, we may be on the brink of the opposite problem. Add to that the possibility of a famine, especially as we don't practice biodiversity in large-scale agriculture, and the possibility of a disease epidemic and the earth population could be rapidly reduced.
Some population reduction might be a good thing, but the same geometric progressions that lead to massive population gains also work in the opposite direction. Zero population growth is very different from zero population, which is what shrinking populations head toward.
Do I think the human race will die out? No. Do I think we have to worry unduly about overpopulation? No.
But what are the implications for social policy if we start heading toward deep population decline?
The issues that have been dear to the conservative Christian agenda (I am not a conservative so I am simply stating these issues, not advocating for them) for the past 30-40 years (coincidentally the same period that we became worried about population explosion)-- banning abortion, stopping gay rights, supporting traditional families with tax breaks -- are all issues that the public as a whole has not embraced.
If our framing story is overpopulation, the dismissal of these initiatives makes sense. If the big problem facing our society is the horror of too many people, then abortion provides a service, the inefficiency of gay reproduction is a boon, and making it easier to raise families should be discouraged so that people will have fewer children. Redefining community and interpersonal relations away from child bearing/childrearing, and towards personal fulfillment becomes important as a way of encouraging low population growth.
But if childbearing takes on more urgent importance, is the conservative Christian agenda, unamended, what we want to embrace? Much of it seems to me a throwback to the bad old days of female (not to mention gay) oppression. Is there another way? And how to build it?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Peace testimony from a Christian
Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog has been running a lively thread on violence called "I know it's the law, but it just doesn't sit right with me," that begins with Scot's thoughts about the Supreme Court knocking down the hand gun ban in D.C. The discussion shaped up with the "realists," those who believe we must have the means (ie guns) to defend ourselves opposing those who believe we need to follow Jesus' radical stance of nonviolence.
Here is what one writer, Scott M, has to say:
I’m simply not willing to concede that reality is not as Jesus of Nazareth described it and that his way of being human is not for us right here and right now. As soon as you take his way and say it is not “realistic” for our present experience or that it is an “ideal” for some future reality, that’s exactly what you’ve done. And when Christians have been notable (at least in a positive way) in history, it’s because they have not just cared for their own. (Caring for those like you is and has always been the human norm.) Rather, they have cared for everyone. They have said every human being is a sacred Eikon of the holy God and must be loved as such.
We almost always react in the pressure of the moment in the way in which we have shaped ourselves (or been shaped) to react. If we are ready to respond with violence, typically the human default position, then that is how we will respond. Only when we have spent the time indirectly shaping ourselves to respond differently through spiritual discipline, communion with God, and the willful intent to be a different person do we have any hope that in the heat of the moment we will respond differently. By the grace and energies of God through the power of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, human beings are able to become more human. We do not have to be filled with violence. That does not have to be our default position.
I believe that because I have studied the history of the Church and read the lives of the saints. It’s not an ideal. Normal, everyday people have been so radically altered that their responses almost appear unreal to us. And the impact they have made is amazing. I would rather believe in the reality they saw than the one proposed by the “realists” who say that violence is necessary and evil can only be resisted through evil means. Even if I’m never able to see the world as they saw it and as Jesus described it, I find I would rather believe that’s because I cannot break the chains of delusion which bind me than believe that reality does not exist — that the nature of the world since Jesus broke the power of death has fundamentally remained unchanged.
And so, yes, I believe that if reality is as Jesus described it and as the saints saw it, then there is always a way to respond, a way to stand for the innocent and against evil that will not require us to kill. It may be that the way becomes for us the way of the Cross all the way to death as it has for many for two thousand years. Nevertheless, if the cosmos did not radically change when Jesus came out of the tomb and death was defeated, if all power in heaven and earth has not been given to him, if the rule of the Kingdom is not the rule today for the people of God, why follow Jesus?
What do you think?
Here is what one writer, Scott M, has to say:
I’m simply not willing to concede that reality is not as Jesus of Nazareth described it and that his way of being human is not for us right here and right now. As soon as you take his way and say it is not “realistic” for our present experience or that it is an “ideal” for some future reality, that’s exactly what you’ve done. And when Christians have been notable (at least in a positive way) in history, it’s because they have not just cared for their own. (Caring for those like you is and has always been the human norm.) Rather, they have cared for everyone. They have said every human being is a sacred Eikon of the holy God and must be loved as such.
We almost always react in the pressure of the moment in the way in which we have shaped ourselves (or been shaped) to react. If we are ready to respond with violence, typically the human default position, then that is how we will respond. Only when we have spent the time indirectly shaping ourselves to respond differently through spiritual discipline, communion with God, and the willful intent to be a different person do we have any hope that in the heat of the moment we will respond differently. By the grace and energies of God through the power of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, human beings are able to become more human. We do not have to be filled with violence. That does not have to be our default position.
I believe that because I have studied the history of the Church and read the lives of the saints. It’s not an ideal. Normal, everyday people have been so radically altered that their responses almost appear unreal to us. And the impact they have made is amazing. I would rather believe in the reality they saw than the one proposed by the “realists” who say that violence is necessary and evil can only be resisted through evil means. Even if I’m never able to see the world as they saw it and as Jesus described it, I find I would rather believe that’s because I cannot break the chains of delusion which bind me than believe that reality does not exist — that the nature of the world since Jesus broke the power of death has fundamentally remained unchanged.
And so, yes, I believe that if reality is as Jesus described it and as the saints saw it, then there is always a way to respond, a way to stand for the innocent and against evil that will not require us to kill. It may be that the way becomes for us the way of the Cross all the way to death as it has for many for two thousand years. Nevertheless, if the cosmos did not radically change when Jesus came out of the tomb and death was defeated, if all power in heaven and earth has not been given to him, if the rule of the Kingdom is not the rule today for the people of God, why follow Jesus?
What do you think?
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wall-e
We saw the movie Wall-e. It's about a robot named Wall-e who's left behind on a trashed earth to clean things up. He falls in love with a robot probe who has come to see if there are any signs of life on earth so that humans who've gone on perpetual space holiday while the planet is cleaned can come home.
I will review the movie (probably) on "Roger and Diane on the movies," but in the meantime, I have to say the trash-piled earth depicted in the film made me cringe as we sort through our house before we move.
We had two metal file cabinets in good condition that we a. could not sell at our yard sale, b. could not get the Salvation Army to accept as a donation (they don't take office furnishings, they told me) and c. could not get the dump to accept for their free pick-up spot. The dump told Roger the file cabinets were not worth trying to give away. So we trashed them. And I think of the great piles of garbage in Wall-e ...
Somehow, this trashing seemed wrong to me. Did we not try hard enough to find a home for two perfectly good file cabinets? Should we have asked around more? How much time can one spend trying to find a place for every object one can't use? Did we really have to fill a landfill with perfectly good things? It bugs me that somewhere out there we could have met a need with those file cabinets. Aren't we meant to be good stewards of the planet's resources?
But we have so much stuff. We simply don't have time to try to place every piece in the right hands. I'm having a new gratitude for Goodwill and other charities that will actually accept many of our goods and try to get them to people who can use them.
And I still have trouble letting go of things, like my children's toys and books, because they are connected with memories. So I am struggling with attachment. I am afraid if I give up the things that trigger the memories, I will lose the memories too. This is not an idle fancy, as sorting through things has brought back all sorts of forgotten episodes.
Haste is again the culprit in all of this. We buy too much because we don't take the time to buy only what we need and we let it accumulate because we don't take the time to give it away.
I hope we don't end up in a Wall-e world that is totally obliterated by great mounds of trash, though I fear we're headed in that direction. Roger told me today that scientists have determined that the alkaline soil on Mars would be good for growing asparagus. I hope we don't see Mars, now that we've found it has water and arable soil, as a new place to despoil.
Is this a spiritual issue? I don't think clutter (within limits) is necessarily a sign of malaise or that a spotless home is a sign of spiritual health, but I believe the unease about so many goods going to waste points to a spiritual problem in our culture
I will review the movie (probably) on "Roger and Diane on the movies," but in the meantime, I have to say the trash-piled earth depicted in the film made me cringe as we sort through our house before we move.
We had two metal file cabinets in good condition that we a. could not sell at our yard sale, b. could not get the Salvation Army to accept as a donation (they don't take office furnishings, they told me) and c. could not get the dump to accept for their free pick-up spot. The dump told Roger the file cabinets were not worth trying to give away. So we trashed them. And I think of the great piles of garbage in Wall-e ...
Somehow, this trashing seemed wrong to me. Did we not try hard enough to find a home for two perfectly good file cabinets? Should we have asked around more? How much time can one spend trying to find a place for every object one can't use? Did we really have to fill a landfill with perfectly good things? It bugs me that somewhere out there we could have met a need with those file cabinets. Aren't we meant to be good stewards of the planet's resources?
But we have so much stuff. We simply don't have time to try to place every piece in the right hands. I'm having a new gratitude for Goodwill and other charities that will actually accept many of our goods and try to get them to people who can use them.
And I still have trouble letting go of things, like my children's toys and books, because they are connected with memories. So I am struggling with attachment. I am afraid if I give up the things that trigger the memories, I will lose the memories too. This is not an idle fancy, as sorting through things has brought back all sorts of forgotten episodes.
Haste is again the culprit in all of this. We buy too much because we don't take the time to buy only what we need and we let it accumulate because we don't take the time to give it away.
I hope we don't end up in a Wall-e world that is totally obliterated by great mounds of trash, though I fear we're headed in that direction. Roger told me today that scientists have determined that the alkaline soil on Mars would be good for growing asparagus. I hope we don't see Mars, now that we've found it has water and arable soil, as a new place to despoil.
Is this a spiritual issue? I don't think clutter (within limits) is necessarily a sign of malaise or that a spotless home is a sign of spiritual health, but I believe the unease about so many goods going to waste points to a spiritual problem in our culture
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Newspapers
The Washington Post ran a story today saying that the Baltimore Sun will cut another 100 jobs. Cuts on top of cuts. I was reminded of an op-ed piece that appeared in the Post recently about the Los Angeles Times: that newspaper too has been ordered to enact another series of draconian staff cuts. This is after one editor left a few years ago protesting the last round of crippling cuts.
Interestingly, according to the op/ed piece, the L.A. Times is scrutinizing reporters on the basis of their productivity. Those who have churned out the most stories will (probably) survive.
As a person who worked for seven years as a newsroom reporter (as distinguished from a freelancer) I can say for a fact that journalism suffers when the whole focus is on churning out as many stories as possible as if they were assembly-line widgets. In fact, not surprisingly, that's what they become: boring and predictable. Ultimately, they become phony stories. Not surprisingly, people stop reading the newspaper.
It should go without saying that the only way, usually, to get the real story, the more difficult and nuanced and harder-to-write story beneath the superficial story that's so simple to churn out, is to allow journalists to dig, ask questions, visit places, take some time to think. But it seems as if, even at the major papers, that time is being yanked away.
As many people have pointed out, weak newspapers are bad for democracy. Investigative reporting is the hardest and most time-consuming for journalists to do, but without it, many abuses by business and government will go on and get worse. Communities are better when newspapers can uncover the unsavory, but now can't expect to have papers with the resources to search out the problems. It will be much easier now for people with power to hoodwink harried reporters.
As we know, newspapers revenues are falling because people turn to the Internet instead of the papers. But newspapers themselves contribute to the problem by adding little value beyond what people can get scanning the Internet.
What is the answer? Obviously, government support of papers would create a conflict of interest. And apparently most of the big papers are going to radically compromise their quality. I imagine the answer will be in the Internet and in the smaller, more independent papers that won't be concerned with high profits.
I hope that in the process of making this transition, journalistic values are not too terribly compromised. One of the things I liked most about journalism were the strict rules that were meant to keep the profession honest and everyone on the same page.
Interestingly, according to the op/ed piece, the L.A. Times is scrutinizing reporters on the basis of their productivity. Those who have churned out the most stories will (probably) survive.
As a person who worked for seven years as a newsroom reporter (as distinguished from a freelancer) I can say for a fact that journalism suffers when the whole focus is on churning out as many stories as possible as if they were assembly-line widgets. In fact, not surprisingly, that's what they become: boring and predictable. Ultimately, they become phony stories. Not surprisingly, people stop reading the newspaper.
It should go without saying that the only way, usually, to get the real story, the more difficult and nuanced and harder-to-write story beneath the superficial story that's so simple to churn out, is to allow journalists to dig, ask questions, visit places, take some time to think. But it seems as if, even at the major papers, that time is being yanked away.
As many people have pointed out, weak newspapers are bad for democracy. Investigative reporting is the hardest and most time-consuming for journalists to do, but without it, many abuses by business and government will go on and get worse. Communities are better when newspapers can uncover the unsavory, but now can't expect to have papers with the resources to search out the problems. It will be much easier now for people with power to hoodwink harried reporters.
As we know, newspapers revenues are falling because people turn to the Internet instead of the papers. But newspapers themselves contribute to the problem by adding little value beyond what people can get scanning the Internet.
What is the answer? Obviously, government support of papers would create a conflict of interest. And apparently most of the big papers are going to radically compromise their quality. I imagine the answer will be in the Internet and in the smaller, more independent papers that won't be concerned with high profits.
I hope that in the process of making this transition, journalistic values are not too terribly compromised. One of the things I liked most about journalism were the strict rules that were meant to keep the profession honest and everyone on the same page.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
June Bible Study
The parallel-text Bible study met on Sunday, and included Jean, who hosted, Bill, Ken, Roger, Lisa and me. Jean made sweet potato biscuits and iced tea, and Lisa brought M&M cookies. We don't meet to eat, but it's a pleasant surprise when homemade food appears, if not good for my diet!
We discussed a long passage (nine pages) of Jesus' prophecies for the future.
As is familiar, Jesus foretells a present age filled with wars and famines, earthquakes and floods, and a time of desolation and abomination. We're warned against false prophets and advised, implicitly, to listen to our own inner guides. We're promised that after a period of tribulation, if we can just hang on faithfully, relief will come and new earth will dawn.
Interestingly, in a passage that follows Jesus talks about separating those who fed the poor, clothed the naked, visited the prisoner, etc. from those who did not, but he speaks in terms of nations that have acted with compassion being separated from nations who have not. This is not about individual salvation but about salvation through community. It pulls the focus from us an individuals and puts it on the larger body of Christ. Do you agree with this reading?
We discussed a long passage (nine pages) of Jesus' prophecies for the future.
As is familiar, Jesus foretells a present age filled with wars and famines, earthquakes and floods, and a time of desolation and abomination. We're warned against false prophets and advised, implicitly, to listen to our own inner guides. We're promised that after a period of tribulation, if we can just hang on faithfully, relief will come and new earth will dawn.
Interestingly, in a passage that follows Jesus talks about separating those who fed the poor, clothed the naked, visited the prisoner, etc. from those who did not, but he speaks in terms of nations that have acted with compassion being separated from nations who have not. This is not about individual salvation but about salvation through community. It pulls the focus from us an individuals and puts it on the larger body of Christ. Do you agree with this reading?
More Miscellany
We had perfect weather and a good time tubing the Brandywine as part of the Quaker First Day school camping trip this past weekend. Tubing down the slow-moving Brandywine is a peaceful activity. Dragonflies would rest on us as we floated.
This will be a last vacation, I believe, before we move. It's hard to relax when a great crush of work and transition looms overhead. We almost certainly won't get to Chincoteague this year, which will seem odd.
Today at Quaker meeting, we heard the prayer of St. Francis and I had a sense of how the light has extended 2,000 years, through people like Francis, George Fox and John Woolman, to embrace us in the present day.
Bethanne brought a vegan lunch to meeting. She and Jean, who both also had/have Lyme disease, suggested I find a "Lyme literate" doctor. She and Jean also suggested I take a probiotic to counter the antibiotic, mostly to avoid yeast infections, so I stopped at David's Natural Food Market and bought some. Sophie can use it too, as she is on an antibiotic.
We met with a knowledgeable person last night who suggested we treat our house as an "executive rental" because it is too well-kept for a run-of-the-mill rental. As often is the case in the real estate industry, I think a word like "executive" becomes exaggerated, but our advisor's worries that our house would get "torn up" by "average" renters made me worried and restless last night. I am hoping and praying that we can find the best and not the worst of humanity to live in our house and am sad that there seems to be a destructive strata of people to be defended against.
This will be a last vacation, I believe, before we move. It's hard to relax when a great crush of work and transition looms overhead. We almost certainly won't get to Chincoteague this year, which will seem odd.
Today at Quaker meeting, we heard the prayer of St. Francis and I had a sense of how the light has extended 2,000 years, through people like Francis, George Fox and John Woolman, to embrace us in the present day.
Bethanne brought a vegan lunch to meeting. She and Jean, who both also had/have Lyme disease, suggested I find a "Lyme literate" doctor. She and Jean also suggested I take a probiotic to counter the antibiotic, mostly to avoid yeast infections, so I stopped at David's Natural Food Market and bought some. Sophie can use it too, as she is on an antibiotic.
We met with a knowledgeable person last night who suggested we treat our house as an "executive rental" because it is too well-kept for a run-of-the-mill rental. As often is the case in the real estate industry, I think a word like "executive" becomes exaggerated, but our advisor's worries that our house would get "torn up" by "average" renters made me worried and restless last night. I am hoping and praying that we can find the best and not the worst of humanity to live in our house and am sad that there seems to be a destructive strata of people to be defended against.
Imperfection
At our Quaker meeting two Sundays ago, a Friend gave a message that has stuck with me.
She was hired to bake a chocolate vegan cake for an event. Her first cake failed. She tried again, this time baking three round layers instead of a sheet cake. The three layers all collapsed in the middle.
At this point, she had no time left. She had to deliver the cakes in half an hour. So she and her husband, who had popped in, worked to salvage the imperfect cakes. They trimmed away the overcooked edges of the sheet cake and cut it into into four pieces, which they frosted. Then they filled the fallen insides of the round cakes: one with strawberries, one with vegan chocolate chips and coconut, and the other with another fruit, I believe, and frosted them. They ended up with cakes that were fine.
In thinking about this, she realized that we're always working with imperfection ... and that's OK. We can make good things out of imperfect beginnings and build good worlds with imperfect people. Life doesn't have to be perfect to be good.
As this story has played over and over in my mind, a "parable of the cakes," I remember that when the God made the world, he didn't declare it perfect. He called it good.
Then he rested.
And when God speaks from heaven and calls Jesus his son, he says he is "well pleased" with him. This is high praise, but not of the most effusive sort.
What all of this says to me is that good is good enough. What do you think?
She was hired to bake a chocolate vegan cake for an event. Her first cake failed. She tried again, this time baking three round layers instead of a sheet cake. The three layers all collapsed in the middle.
At this point, she had no time left. She had to deliver the cakes in half an hour. So she and her husband, who had popped in, worked to salvage the imperfect cakes. They trimmed away the overcooked edges of the sheet cake and cut it into into four pieces, which they frosted. Then they filled the fallen insides of the round cakes: one with strawberries, one with vegan chocolate chips and coconut, and the other with another fruit, I believe, and frosted them. They ended up with cakes that were fine.
In thinking about this, she realized that we're always working with imperfection ... and that's OK. We can make good things out of imperfect beginnings and build good worlds with imperfect people. Life doesn't have to be perfect to be good.
As this story has played over and over in my mind, a "parable of the cakes," I remember that when the God made the world, he didn't declare it perfect. He called it good.
Then he rested.
And when God speaks from heaven and calls Jesus his son, he says he is "well pleased" with him. This is high praise, but not of the most effusive sort.
What all of this says to me is that good is good enough. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)