Le livre dont le chapitre ci-dessous est extrait pose la question : Pourquoi la France a-t-elle connu une révolution démocratique et démographique, mais pas la Grande-Bretagne ?
Amid Australia's growing conflict over population numbers and democratic planning, we need ideas based on historical and social research, rather than shallow logistics pushed by technocrats. Familiar with these dynamics, I see the challenge of joining this debate with the depth it needs.
If we are to survive, we must give up two core beliefs. One is the belief that we are qualified to be wise planetary stewards, and the other is that there will always be technological solutions to the problems that were created by previous technological solutions.
Technophilia is described in various sources as a strong enthusiasm for technology.
But what many members of our species display goes far beyond enthusiasm.
Starry-eyed technophiles go on animatedly, in what appears to be quasi-religious rapture and hyperbole, about a banquet of opportunities apparently afforded us by our technologies. All the while, they blindly ignore the fact that the horrendous problems we face were created and enabled by technologies in the first place – dead zones and enormous “islands” of plastic in the oceans, soil depletion and exhaustion, massive consumption and overconsumption of resources, emissions and air pollution, hundreds of sites on the planet and specifically in North America contaminated by radioactive waste, and the list just goes on and on.
The last item above is a typical illustration. Nuclear power, originally hyped as being safe and "too cheap to meter," is still heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and is still creating problems for present and future generations to deal with. Recent disasters aside, there are tonnes of “legacy” waste we have yet to deal with properly, as well as the increasing contamination of the North American Great Lakes and other bodies of water by radionuclides from mining and power generating activities.
Yet we delude ourselves, as Neil Postman says in “Technopoly,” with “the catastrophic idea that in peace as well as in war technology will be our saviour.” Postman goes on to say that technophiles “gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future.”
And, when it comes to the future, we have already demonstrated clearly that, while we are a clever little species when it comes to inventing things, we have a very poor record in predicting the long term consequences, let alone the unintended consequences. We, in Einstein’s words, “thoughtlessly make use of the miracles of science and technology, without understanding more about them than a cow eating plants understands about botany.”
In a lovely little act of anthropocentric circular reasoning, we claim that human cleverness and intelligence are the main criteria for the job of planetary stewards, and that our technology is evidence of our suitability for that job. Then we claim that, by gosh, we’re the only species which exhibits those qualities (apparently) so we must be the natural stewards of this planet. We fake the qualifications for the job in our favour. And our performance on that job is so dismal that we should have been fired long ago. We are, after all, the only species to bring the planet to the brink of nuclear winter, runaway climate change, and collapse of ecosystem supports necessary for our own life. We are the only species to spread toxic and persistent poisons around the entire planet. We are the only species that has caused one of the “great extinctions” of other species on this planet.
Technophiles might argue that it is not technology, but the inappropriate use which is the real problem. That is a facile and denial-ridden response, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that the problem runs much, much deeper.
And all we hear about in glowing color is that more technology is the solution to our problems – the sort of thinking from the past that has created our problems in the first place. Solar panels will be our saviour. Wind power will be our saviour. Better fuel efficiency in transportation will be our saviour. Recycling will save the planet. And so on. Another quotation often attributed to Einstein sums it up nicely: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” We must move beyond our obsession and infatuation with our own technologies, and beyond the idea that our role on this planet is one of stewardship and control. We must, in Lovelock’s words, “realize more than other green thinkers the magnitude of the change of mind needed to bring us back to peace within Gaia, the living Earth.” We must plan and execute a “sustainable retreat” from where we are.
Overcoming our own smugness and arrogance about our cleverness and about our place on this planet – overcoming our narcissistic technophilia - would be good first steps.
Rick Shea
February 22, 2012
Originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/9600/2012-02-21/narcissistic-technophilia and re-posted here with the Rick Shea’s permission
A new website - http://CensusNoReligion.org - has been designed as a resource for interested Australians in the lead up to the next Australian Census being held on 9 August 2011. It gives people information about how the results of this question can be misused to allocate funds, overstate the number of actively religious people in Australia, and exaggerate the importance of religion in modern Australia.
The Atheist Foundation of Australia (AFA) has launched a new website designed to encourage individuals and families to think about the importance and impact of their answer to the Census question: "What is the person's religion?"
This campaign is part of a wider education and communication campaign being run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia that draws attention to the fact that the wording of this question means many people will select the religion of their baptism or initiation at youth, despite not being a religious person at all.
This website - http://CensusNoReligion.org - has been designed as a resource for interested Australians in the lead up to the next Australian Census being held on 9 August 2011. It gives people information about how the results of this question can be misused to allocate funds, overstate the number of actively religious people in Australia, and exaggerate the importance of religion in modern Australia.
AFA President David Nicholls said, "Data from the Census is used by parliamentarians and religious leaders to sway politics and social policy in favour of complying with religious tenets and ecclesiastical notions. In fact in many cases, it makes a situation where a decision that should rely on empirical evidence is overridden by religious demands.
"The coming Census in Australia is an important chance to make sure your interests are met in decision making and funding and that views you do not hold are not over-represented in the coming years," Nicholls said. "I encourage everyone to visit the website and make sure they are informed of the implications of their answers, and if you are not religious now to mark 'No religion' on August 9."
For more information go to: http://CensusNoReligion.org
Hallowe'en is an ancient Celtic festival held annually in respect for the Dead - our recent and previous ancestors. It is a ritual festival of honouring those who have gone before us.
Americans have adapted their 'trick or treat' game to this time of year, but the Celtic meaning runs culturally deeper than lollies and kids doing tricks. Our forefathers had to condend with less in worse conditions - they struggled, they survived, they learnt and became wise. Hallowe'en is respect for the wisdom that came before us by our ancestors who have enabled the current generation thrive better than they did.
Traditionally, Hallowe'en is a colloquial abbreviated expression for 'All-Hallows-Even' meaning the evening before All Hallows Day, where All Hallows Day is 1st November. 'All Hallows' refers to all ancestors and a reverence toward them.
Jack-o' Lantern is a carved pumpkin associated with the pagan Hallowe'en feast. The tradition from Britain, Ireland and Celtic Europe involves a pumpkin with a face carved into it and candle light inside to project a ghostly flickering face of our ancestors. It originates from the pagan agrarian tradition in Ireland of using pumpkins as lantern light in the evening while harvesting turf (peat bog) for fuel heating to prepare for the onset of winter.
Indeed, the peat in the bog lands has been known to produce a light flammable gas which can spontaneously combust causing a phosphorescent flickering light, also traditionally termed 'will-o'-the-wisp' (Latin 'ignis fatuus'). The light is quite ghostly. The candle light of a carved pumpkin is also quite ghostly - one should try it with a pumpkin next Hallowe'en.
The Hallowe'en tradition is a noble one of respecting one's ancestors. It surpasses that of Christianity which adopted and manipulated the tradition and turned it into All Saints Day to celebrate the churches saints instead of one's ancestors. Surely Hallowe'en has more genuine grassroots meaning.
The Hallowe'en tradition also involves lighting a bonfire which is said to also have originated in Ireland during Pagan times when the Celts lit huge fires on the hills so the spirits could find their way. It was also said that these fires would help to keep away evil spirits. Another old Irish Halloween tale says that if you drop a strand of your hair into the flames and dream of your future husband or wife to be, you're dreams will come true!
Bonfires are a huge part of the Halloween festivities in Ireland and are lit in both rural areas and towns throughout the country. They are built from all sorts of materials and some take days of preparation!
There are many games associated with Halloween. Apples are a traditional Halloween fruit as they were very plentiful in October. One of the most popular Halloween games in Ireland is 'Snap Apple'. In this game an apple is hung from the ceiling and the children are blindfolded. The first one to take a bite from the apple wins! This game can also be played by putting apples into basin of water. The first person to lift out an apple by grabbing the stem with their teeth is the winner.
The tradition is pagan and is not confined to the Celts, but such recognition of the dead transcends many faiths as a form of Festival of the Dead.
The Hallowe'en tradition predates Christianity and so this is why mainsteam Christian faiths choose not to recognise its human value - it undermines their religious doctrine.
In ancient times, Celts celebrated a holiday called 'Samhain' (pronounced "Sa-wan") on the last day of October, the 31st. In the northern hemisphere this was at a natural time when the farming harvest had ended and the days started to get noticeably shorter and colder.
Such productive (oft 'weather fortuitous') harvest time induced a sense of respect for those who had made such riches possible and so this extended into a time for respecting one's ancestors.
Roman invasion of Britain and Europe eventually saw Christianity replace paganism. Hallowe'en was graduually replaced and inculated by the Christian All Saints' Day on not 31st October, but 1st November. It was part of a concerted Christian deculturation of local primitive faiths. Today, the Catholic church recognises 2nd November 2nd All Souls' Day to honour the dead.
Mmm, I respect the deep human-earth meaning of Hallowe'en, rather than the invasive religious ulterior motive of compliance.
Sydney's newspaper, the Sun-Herald has just reported that annual catholic youth recruitment drive otherwise known as World Youth Day World, hosted by Sydney in 2008 cost taxpayers of $86 million. The original total cost estimate was $20 million, so it blew out by $66 million.
The Evangelistic Spin
Held between 15th to 20th July 2008, the forecast attendance of 'pilgrims' for WYD08 was supposed to be some 500,000. It was promoted to NSW taxpayers as promising a 'massive injection' into the Sydney economy...'the single largest gathering of people since the Sydney 2000 Olympics will generate tourism earnings, business opportunities, global brand positioning and cultural exchanges.'[Source: Sydney Chamber of Commerce].
In the lead up planning in 2006, the NSW Department of State and Regional Development (DSRD) had undertaken an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) in considering NSW hosting the World Youth Day event. DSRD estimated ‘the gross total direct and flow-on value added’ to New South Wales from hosting the event to be $152 million. But it excluded potential benefits from additional tourism, business generated, international media coverage and intangible costs such as business disruption.
NSW Minister for Finance at the time, John Watkins MP, claimed that the event would generate $190m in tourism revenue, and the Sydney Chamber of Commerce projected an even more optimistic estimate of $230m! [Crikey - 'NSW spending too much on World Youth Day? Pope a Catholic?']
Wonderful stuff one we were meant to believe!
The Reality
Well WYD08 officially attracted 223,000 registered pilgrims. [WYD08 website], even though the unofficial wiki website somehow claims "300,000 young people from 200 countries attended during the week, and more than 1,000,000 came for the weekend." Evangelism or facts?
An independent audit report by the NSW Audit Office into the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority confirmed that the combined NSW and Commonwealth Government contributions came to $68.8M, while the Catholic Church contributed just $10M. Direct revenue totalled $10.5M.
The catholic event involved taking over Randwick Racecourse not just for the event but for four months preventing racing anytime between 6 September 2008 and 31 December 2008. The racing industry was compensated $41.1 million out of taxpayers money, even though the horse trainers at Royal Randwick had estimated the compensation should have been $50M. Additional costs of turf replacement totalled $2.3M
The Undisclosed Costs?
Other costs of services provided by other government agencies noted by the NSW Audit Office involved seconded staffing, dedicated policing including considerable overtime, yet according to its audit report "the cost of these services does not appear in the Authority’s financial report as the value could not be reliably determined."
So what were these costs? Why have they not been made public? The whole event may well have cost in excess of $150 million for all we know. Ad despite all promised hype, what was the confirmed value of the so-called "international profile and economic benefits of Sydney's World Youth Day"?
This event imposed a massive impost on Sydney and involved massive public resources for the direct benefit of a church group, yet the full costs and benefits even in economic terms have been covered up by the NSW Government.
Could the $86M+ have been more equitably spent?
What tangible benefit did that $86M+ contribute to NSW society?
What were the opportunity costs of those millions?
According to a NSW Government Briefing paper on Homelessness in NSW:
"Data from the last Census in 2006 published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in its “Counting the Homeless Report”, indicated that at the time of the last Census, there were approximately 104,676 people who were counted as homelessness, with approximately 27,374 people counted as homeless in NSW. There were also approximately 16,375 people who were “sleeping rough” in Australia on the night of the Census and approximately 3,715 people “sleeping rough” in NSW. The City of Sydney also recently conducted a street count of people “sleeping rough” on 17 February 2009. It found that there were 340 people “sleeping rough” in the CBD and surrounding suburbs, including Woolloomooloo, Kings Cross, Paddington, Glebe, Surry Hills, Ultimo and Redfern."
Compare the self-serving benefits to the catholic church of WYD08 of the $86M+ to what the social benefits could have been dividing the money equally between Mission Australia, The Salvation Army and the Red Cross - each charities providing direct tangible benefits to society's most needy.
New data from The Salvation Army reveals that in the past 12 months, 1 in 5 people (20%) coming to them have never asked for help from the Salvos before.
The Salvos estimate that in the past 12 months they have seen approximately 80,000 Australians in need come to their door for the first time ever.*
The Salvos need to raise $75 million nationally from this year’s Red Shield Appeal including $9.7 million from the big doorknock on 29 and 30 May.
Major Brad Halse, spokesperson for The Salvation Army, said, “Our services are stretched greatly. The demand on our frontline personnel is still huge. Without doubt many, many Australians in the cities and the bush are doing it tough. It doesn’t take a lot to tip struggling families into a situation where they desperately need help." [Source: Salvation Army website]
It ain't as if the catholic church is 'needy'
BRW magazine's investigative research has shown that churches generated almost $23 billion in 2004, with the Catholic Church turning over almost two-thirds of that.
The Catholic Church is almost five times larger than any other church and dominates the top 20 charities, the magazine says. It estimated the Catholic Church's gross revenue at $15 billion in 2004. The next largest was the Uniting Church with $3.1 billion.
The Catholic Education offices in NSW, Victoria and Queensland made up three of the top four charities. Several Catholic hospitals were in the top 20. BRW estimates the Catholic Church owns property and other assets worth more than $100 billion. [Source: 'Catholics lead rise in charity revenue', 23rd March 2005]
All the while, the catholic church, like all religious groups, do not pay tax. So the $8M+ of taxpayers dollars spent on WYD08 was effectively an annual religious recruitment drive by the catholic church.
'In 2005, BRW research found that the Catholic Church earned the bulk of the more than $23b in revenue earned by the ten largest religious groups - $16.25b. At the same growth rate identified by Adele Ferguson, this would be $20.47b in 2008. If even just 5% of that revenue was profit, that’s more than $300m that the Catholic Church will avoid this year in company tax alone. Ferguson estimated that the Church had more than $100b in assets, the bulk of which would be property – which would mean several hundred million dollars more in land tax that state governments are missing out on.
So, courtesy of our exempting religions from taxation, the Catholic Church alone keeps the best part of a billion dollars a year minimum. Throw in everyone else – the Uniting Church, the Anglicans, the happy clappers and their coffee chains, the Salvos – and we’re talking a billions of dollars a year in tax revenue forgone. The $160m being poured into the Youth Day is small beer indeed."[Source: NSW spending too much on World Youth Day? Pope a Catholic?'Bernard Keane on Crikey, 28th April 2008].
Conclusions and Questions
Not only has this event demonstrated the absolute ineptitude of the NSW Government to even come close to cost estimates for such major events (a four fold blowout), it has failed to publicly disclose the full public economic costs (such as policing and that of seconded agency staff), so the NSW Government has been less than honest with the people of NSW of whom it squandered their taxes.
What were the benefits from additional tourism, business generated, international media coverage and intangible costs such as business disruption?
The NSW Government has close ties with the catholic church and many of its cabinet ministers are catholic. At the time of the staging of World Youth Day, Premier Morris Iemma was catholic, Deputy Premier (and the minister responsible for World Youth Day) John Watkins was catholic, the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Barbara Perry was catholic, Minister for Ports and Waterways, Joe Tripodi, was catholic and the then Minister for Ageing, Kristina Keneally, who met her husband at a previous World Youth Day, was also catholic.
This $86M+ of taxpayers money going to a catholic church recruitment drive and appropriating Randwick Racecourse for a church group was not only a gross misuse of public monies and an inappropriate favouritism by government on a massive scale; it has compromised the democratic principles of separation of church and state. Clearly in NSW the two are not so separate. Imaging the outcry if Iemma and Watkins were members of the church of scientology and they arranged all this the same way!
The catholic church mislead the NSW government and the people of NSW with its inflated estimates of attendees and should be held financial responsible to reinburse the NSW Government for the shortfall. WYD08 only registered 223,000 pilgrims not the promised 500,000.
What 'massive injection' went into the Sydney economy? The NSW Government and the Sydney Chamber of Commerce need to clarify the actual revenues.
What contribution did the catholic church in NSW contribute to NSW society in 2008 by way of charity and humanitarian support in verifiable dollars? How does this compare with the likes of The Salvation Army, Mission Australia and the Red Cross? How much does the NSW Government contribute to these social charities on an annual basis?
How can the catholic church ethically request the NSW and Commonwealth Governments fund its WYD08 recruitment drive to the tune of $86M+, when many citizens of NSW were not asked and many are not catholic, do not want to be and object to their taxes being undemocratically used to fund a church festival?
How can the catholic church ethically request the NSW and Commonwealth Governments fund its WYD08 recruitment drive to the tune of $86M+, when the catholic church has been found to generate $15 billion in 2004 alone?
The catholic church has robbed taxpayers in self-serving recruitment drive , that it could have easily finance out of its bank account.
The catholic church has an ethical obligation to refund the $86 million less its own contributed $10m (so the balance of $76M) to the NSW and Australian taxpayers. The $76M should then ethically go directly to our society's most needy in provide tangible long term life-improving support and the full $76M be independently and publicly accounted for.
Now that would be an ethical use of taxpayers money.
The Catholic Inquisition was set up by the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 to seek out and destroy heretics, pagans and witches (the hostility to sex and women).
Religion is socially irrelevant. It's charity cause is noble but in this it does the work of morally corrupt governments. Charity has become the only hold religions have left on the masses.
Name one religion without a dogma, rules, prejudice and a history of persecution of dissenters, and particularly against women! Check your facts before replying. I have checked mine and there ain't none! It was the church that started witch hunts.
Ethics and 'deity-free' spiritual beliefs are morally superior to religion. By 'superior' I mean morally right, objective, absence of ulterior motives, free thinking, democratic, rational, open-mined, more useful to society in guiding virtuous values, attitudes and behaviours.
I challenge a debate!
The Buddhism Example
While many will be mindful of the oppressive history of Christianity, few will be aware that the so-called 'tolerant' religion, Buddhism, has a similar oppressive history of imposing its dogma upon peoples holding traditional spiritual belief systems.
Tibet's ancient indigenous shamanism and pagan animism pre-dated the influx of Indian Buddhism. 'The original religion of Tibet was Bon-Po, a form of shamanism, but this was oppressively and systematically replaced by an imported and bastardised form of Buddhism, with the aid of the 8th Century Tibetan King Khri Srong-Ide'ti-btsan.
He issued an ultimatum to his religious subjects to either turn Buddhist or become ordinary tax-paying citizens, or leave the country. Most chose to leave. Those that refused all options were threatened with death. The Bon-Po monasteries were stolen, holy shrines were destroyed and the King tried to burn all holy writings. (These were hidden in the mountains, ravines and even in some converted Buddhist monasteries.)'
'The World Tree' - a symbol of ancient shamanist spirituality in Tibet, before Buddhist oppression'
http://www.energygrid.com/spirit/free-tibet.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism
http://images.elfwood.com/art/m/a/maryjo/jeanne_darc.jpg
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/witch-hunts-and-christian-mentality
What underlies the Australian establishment's antipathy to and ignorance of nature? The conflict between religion and science, and the roles played by 'colonial rationalists', the Catholic Church, and the State in the suppression of flourishing scientific debate and celebration of Australia's unique ecology. How controversy preceding the passage of the Victorian Education Act 1872 (which was intended to secularise education) derived from a rearguard defence against the growing influence of Darwin, to the lasting demotion of natural science and respect for environment and other creatures in mass media and government. This article was published in response to "Anglican Church Australia Overpopulated discussion paper - entire," and comments by Vivienne Ortega and John Marlowe
This article was originally written as background research for an as yet unpublished theory on the politics of natural science and environmentalism in Australia. I dusted it off in response to the comments above. Hope people will find it interesting.
Colin Finney in Paradise Revealed, Natural History in Nineteenth-Century Australia [1], writes that science gained ground in school curriculums during the 1890s. He attributes this trend to the role in its encouragement played by a group of liberal and influential schoolmasters associated with the council of the University of Melbourne. He names the Reverend Dr John Bromby, ex-headmaster of Melbourne Grammar School, and Dr Charles Pearson, royal commissioner, former lecturer in history at the University, and headmaster of the Presbyterian Ladies College, as important in this group. The group’s efforts were supported by friendly University professors who did duty as matriculation examiners. Not surprisingly, he notes that the teacher group was “often more sympathetic to science than were University professors such as Frederick McCoy…”
A G Austin, author of Australian Education, 1788-1900,[2] describes the conflict between religion and science, and the roles played by 'colonial rationalists', the Catholic Church, and the State. He attributes much of the controversy preceding the passage of the Victorian Education Act 1872 (which was intended to secularise education) to a rearguard defence against the growing influence of Lyell, Darwin, Huxley and Spencer. He writes of a 'spate of lectures and sermons on the topic' delivered by such as Professor Frederick McCoy. Dr John Bromby (mentioned above, for the other side) delivered a competing lecture at the same venue:
"This procession of learned divines and professors across the stage of the Princess Theatre in the winter of 1869 seems somewhat ludicrous until we realize that these men were not engaged in any academic reconstruction of the English debate, but were doing serious battle against a potent force at work in their own midst, for rationalism had been an active and vocal movement in Victoria for a number of years."[3]
"In ever-hardening opposition to the rise of secularism stood the Roman Catholic Church which, almost alone, made up that group of denominationalists who were prepared to reject the secularists' claims as a matter of principle… Irish English and Spanish as they were, the bishops had had to adapt their European outlook to the concerns of the impoverished minority group which made up their flock."
But money and power were also at stake. The cost of renouncing State aid was too great for most religions and they did not seriously pursue the notion of establishing separate religious schools. But the Catholic Church stood its ground and set about establishing its own school system.
"This restatement of Catholic ideals, dogma and discipline could not help but collide, head-on with the whole liberal ethos of the late nineteenth century. Worse, this collision of ideologies would inevitably expose and inflame the sectarian bitterness and bigotry which has always formed an ugly scar across the Australian mind…"[4]
"It had always been there … but in the closing stages of this struggle between Church and State it assumed a dimension which these three writers have not fully appreciated. It produced the form in which the secular Actis finally passed into law - designed, not to drive religion out of the State schools, but to prevent the Roman Catholic Church from continuing its assault upon the liberal, secular State with the aid of the State's own resources."[5]
The question that arises in my mind is whether this historic situation has prevailed and the Catholic education system has continued to reject Darwinism at all but a superficial level. It certainly seems to be the case that the Catholic Church, at least in Australia and America, plays a special role in discouraging effective population policies to restrain growth by encouraging high migration, discouraging contraception and maintaining a weak and superficial line on ecology and the environment. [6] If my observation is true, then here is a further explanation of the extreme sensitivity and poor viability of debating and designing effective population policy in Australia and other countries with similar histories.
In his fascinating history, A. G. Austin, Australian Education 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in Colonial Australia,[7], writes that, in the 19th Century, apart from Edward Cohen's contribution, the secularist agenda to remove religion from education came from a small 'heterogenous' group. Cohen was a leading member of the Victorian Jewish community and a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, who said:
"This being a new and free country, let us leave behind us all the superstitious nonsense of the old world. Let us meet here on common ground. Let us send all our children to the same schools, irrespective of creed or country; and let them there be brought up in that creed of kindliness and friendliness which will make them forget that their other creeds divide them."
Austin asserts that historical study of the development in English thought through Lyell, Darwin, Huxley and Spencer, that focuses on New South Wales to the exclusion of Victoria, would fail to note the much earlier and vigorous manifestation of Darwinian secular thought in that State.
"Controversy was very lively in Victoria in the 1860s; to postpone its arrival until the 1870s is to miss the point of many of the arguments which preceded the passage of the Victorian [secular] Education Act of 1872." [8]
In support of this he cites the "spate of lectures and sermons which were delivered on this topic towards the end of the 1860s." Once again the name of Professor Frederick McCoy is raised, with reference to his lengthy condemnations of Huxley and Darwin's theories. Apparently McCoy and the pro-Darwinist Reverend Dr J E Bromby both appeared before a large audience at the Princess Theatre, Melbourne on 28 June 1869. Two weeks later Bromby's bishop, Bishop Perry appeared at the same venue to retrieve the church's reputation. He delivered a two hour lecture on the theme that "the Bible has nothing to fear from Science."[9]
Austin makes the point that "the procession of learned divines and professors across the stage of the Princess Theatre in the winter of 1869" was not just part of a debating festival. These men were seriously engaged in defending their positions as the rationalist movement steadily gained ground.
Austin cites E.W. Cole, owner of the "famous" Bourke Street Book Arcade," as renowned for "daily suffering Persecution for his heretical writings, which the boldest Melbourne papers are afraid to advertise."[10] Cole’s publications Religions of the World, (1866); The Real Place in History of Jesus and Paul (1867) and Essay on the Deluge (1869) were all published in Melbourne. A.G. Austin also mentions Henry Keylock Rusden, "renegade son of the vicar of East Maitland and radical brother of George William Rusden", who was a pro-Christian but non-sectarian agent of the National [Education] Board for the whole of eastern Australia.[11]
In 1871 Henry Keylock Rusden said this to Bishop Perry during a public encounter:
"...education is most valuable in so far as it is moral ... Morality is based - not upon religion - but upon men's social nature and necessities ... That very religious fervour which formerly prompted our ancestors to incremate each other for being conscientious - to subordinate real and natural to imaginary and supernatural duty - is precisely that which now interposes the principal obstacle to the establishment here of an effective (or secular) system of education ... The suppression of the broad distinction between moral and religious needs and objects is so general, that I grieve to say that I know no school in Melbourne much superior to the streets for acquiring moral training. [12]
Austin thinks Victoria was most influenced by the rationalist movement of all the colonies in Australia. Major Victorian newspapers, including The Age and the Argus, supported the rationalists' position on secularisation of education, if not their arguments. At the national level the Sydney Morning Herald, the Queensland Guardian, the Brisbane Courier, the South Australian Register, and the West Australian all eventually came to the same point of view.
George Higinbothom, editor of the Argus, lawyer, Member of Parliament, Minister of the Crown, Royal Commissioner and Chief Justice)[13] stood somewhere between the rationalists and the more conservative non-sectarianists. The latter believed that education should be Christian, but not sectarian. As chairman of the Royal Commission into the Common Schools Act, he delivered a report denouncing a system that left more than half the colony's children completely unschooled. He introduced a bill for compulsory elementary school education. In the belief that religion was an essential part of education, the bill also sought to allow clergy to give non-sectarian religious instruction in schools at allotted periods.
The Age and the Argus both urged Higinbotham to go the whole hog and support the "absolutely secular" position.
Giving his reasons as due to the "ecclesiastical rivalry and dissension and ... the unpatriotic policy pursued by the leading Christian sects" he gave his support to a completely sectarian system.
The famous politician, Henry Parkes, who spent five terms as Premier of Victoria, and was a major legislator on educational issues, came out in defence of non-sectarian religious instruction, apparently in the spirit of ecumenicism. [14]
The Roman Catholic Church was by far the most discountenanced by the secular education movement. It was the only one to stand its ground. In the face of the threat of withdrawal of government grants for school salaries from denominational schools, all the other religions demurred to the secularist non-sectarian option.[15]
Austin describes the Roman Catholic hierarchy as "Irish, English and Spanish ... the bishops had had to adapt their European outlook to the concerns of the impoverished minority group which made up their flock." This meant that they had become increasingly reliant on government handouts.
"By the [eighteen] sixties and seventies the ultimate result of this process [of concentrating power in the new secular school boards] was becoming clear: the Roman Catholic schools were gradually being squeezed out of the government system..."
[16]
The Catholic stance was bolstered by the publication of Pope Pius IX's encyclical Quanta Cura, which included the famous Syllabus of Errors. Darwinism historian, David L Hull, "Darwinism and Historiography" in The Comparative Reception of Darwinism[17], describes Pius IX as having put his stamp on one of the most scurrilous anti-Darwinian attacks to appear in the French language. Paul Collins in God's Earth, Religion as if Matter Really Mattered, p.32 attributes moves toward papal centralism and the declaration of papal primacy and infallibility in 1870 as in part reactions to Darwin's Origin of Species. He writes that in the Syllabus Pius IX stated his intention not to "reconcile himself with progress, liberalism and with modern civilization."[18] Austin writes that this restatement of Catholic ideals, dogma and discipline could not help but collide, head-on, with the whole liberal ethos of the late nineteenth century.[19]
In Australia as in Europe, this new statement of Papal infallibility and inflexible opposition to liberalism was experienced as a political threat by non-Catholics (and doubtless by Catholics as well.) In response to the Vatican decisions of 1870, Gladstone wrote:
"For the first time in my life I shall be obliged to talk about popery; for it would be a scandal to call the religion they are manufacturing at Rome by the same name as that of Pascal ... The truth is that ultramontanism is an anti-social power, and never has it more un-disguisedly assumed that character than in the Syllabus... The proclamation of Infallibility I must own I look upon as the most portentous (taking them singly), of all events in the history of the Christian church." (A.G. Austin, citing John Morely, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone.) [20]
Interestingly, the Australian environmentalist Catholic priest, Paul Collins, author of God's Earth, Religion as if Matter really mattered, later wrote a book called Papal Power challenging these very foundations of modern papal authority. (He then quit the priesthood before he was pushed.)
A G Austin writes of such a sense of danger to liberalism as being all the stronger in Australia because they felt that "the enemy was so much more numerous".
"Never less than one-fifth of the population, and by 1870 close to one-third, the Catholics in Australia had always represented to the Protestant mind a very real political danger. Victoria's Registrar-General was not exaggerating when he told an audience at St. Patrick's College that he had 'seen it stated in broad print ... that Catholics are striving with all their might to obtain more than their due share of influence in the Legislature, and interest in the patronage of the Government." (A.G. Austin citing W.H. Archer, Noctes Catholicae)[21]
Sixteen years later a Ministry under Irish patriot Gavan Duffy had lost government over a scandal where the Premier was charged as having abused privilege by preferring to appoint Irish Catholics for official appointments.
That same year, 1872, some voices, including that of the Protestant Rev. F.B. Bryce of Orange, suggested some sort of funding compromise in order to avoid totally alienating Catholics and giving rise to a dual system. But it was Parkes, the once persistent defender of non-sectarian religious instruction in schools, who finally drafted and sponsored the Bill to abolish all financial aid to denominational schools in 1879. All other States followed suit in time.[22]
The Victorian State elections in 1872 degenerated into a sectarian struggle between Catholics and non-Catholics. The Argus came out in defence of the government. In Sydney the scenario was repeated in the 1880s. In Western Australia, where Sir John Forrest had a very good relationship with the influential Bishop Gibney, the abolishing of State aid to denominational schools did not occur until 1895. The protestant majority in that State had become increasingly vocal about its desire for this to happen and the elections of 1894 focused on the issue. [23]
A.G. Austin comments on the number of
"gold-seekers [who] came swarming into the colony [of Western Australia] from the depression-ridden colonies in the east. Overnight Western Australia was confronted with the eastern influences from which it had been so effectively insulated ..." "With every increase in eastern migration [Forrest's Catholic pacifying] policies became less acceptable, and his opposition more formidable."[24],
And so the Australia-wide independent Catholic education system was established on a basis of historic bitterness and alienation from the rest of the Australian community and within a strongly anti-Darwinian culture. Providing a lower cost private education, it continues to service a growing part of the Australian community, many of whom are not Catholics. It seems likely that these beginnings may have created barriers for the Australian Catholic Church to formulate a system for understanding Australia's ecological uniqueness. The Church's stance on birth control is well known to be prejudiced against artificial methods of contraception and abortion, although its policy on population control could be said, at least at an interpersonal level, to be Malthusian. However the Catholic Church, in Australia and elsewhere, has become an ardent advocate of open borders and high migration. Naturally Catholic migrants and refugees are more likely to receive assistance to migrate from the Church than others. The demographic impact of this on political processes affecting population policies has to be considered.
On the question of the Church's treatment of ecological imperatives Collins, writing as a priest:
"This [Cartesian-Newtonian] mechanistic view of nature has achieved a great deal for science and it still predominates in contemporary scientific thinking. But the mechanistic approach sees nature as a vast, inanimate storehouse of useable 'resources' that are there to be exploited for the short-term advantage of humankind. It is this attitude that has brought us to the tragic and disastrous environmental impasse that we face today. ... Up until the latter part of the nineteenth century, when the revival of the philosophy of Aquinas was mandated for the training of priests by the Vatican, it was largely the philosophy of Descartes that was taught to student priests in European seminaries. Theology easily embraced the Cartesian notion of the mind in the machine because for so long the Christian tradition had been subverted by Neo-Platonic dualism. Descartes was simply the tag end of Platonism.
"In the Christian communities, such issues [as ecology] are usually swept aside by seemingly more anthropocentric issues, such as social justice and the liberation and development of the third world. ... Muscle-flexing by churches from developing countries led to a highlighting of the centrality of human liberation that largely pushed ecological theology into the background.... I mention the fate of ecology at the WCC Assembly because it is typical of the way the churches deal with this topic. It is good as window dressing, but it is not really taken seriously. ..."[25]
Perhaps in fact the problem for the Catholic Church and for much of the non-Catholic population as well, lies in the lack of a Darwinian or equivalent concept of or aesthetic appreciation for our biosphere. How widespread is the Cartesian view of a mechanistic universe of soul-less animal servants and incidental flora and fauna peripheral to the human system in contributing to educated as well as unsophisticated [by which I don't mean hunter-gatherer] peoples' world views?
[1] Colin Finney, Paradise Revealed, Natural History in Nineteenth-Century Australia, Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, 1993, p 123
[2] A G Austin, Australian Education, 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in colonial Australia, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, Melbourne, 1961, pp 181-204
[3] A G Austin, Australian Education, 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in colonial Australia, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, Melbourne, 1961, p 183
[4] A G Austin, Australian Education, 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in colonial Australia, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, Melbourne, 1961, p 196
[5] A G Austin, Australian Education, 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in colonial Australia, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, Melbourne, 1961, p 197
[6] Paul Collins, God's Earth, Religion as if matter really mattered, Dove, Harper Collins, 1995, pp140-141, "In the Christian communities such issues are usually swept aside by seemingly more pressing anthropocentric issues, such as social justice and the liberation and development of the third world. … Muscle flexing by churches from developing countries led to a highlighting of the centrality of human liberation that largely pushed ecological theology into the background. .. [Ecology] is good as window dressing, but it is not really taken seriously. The seemingly incurable anthropocentrism of the churches means that the call to protect nature is soon swamped by the pressing reality of human needs. Human development quickly takes over from ecological conservation."
[7] A. G. Austin, Australian Education 1788-1900, Church, State and Public Education in Colonial Australia, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd, 1961) p. 181.
[8] Ibid
[9] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p. 182 citing C. Perry, Science and the Bible, Melbourne 1869, p.3.
[10] A.G. Austin Op. Cit., p 183, note 38, (citing B.S. Nayler), Cole's, The Battle of Science, Melbourne, 1869, p.12.
[11] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p.49 and p.183.
[12] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p.184, note 41, citing 'Hoker' (H.K. Rusden), The Bishop of Melbourne's Theory of Education, Melbourne 1871, pp.4, 6.
[13] A.G. Austin, Ibid. p.184)
[14] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., pp. 189-190)
[15] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p. 190 and p.197.
[16] A.G. Austin p. 194, note 72, citing T.P. Fogarty, The Principles, Origins and Development of Catholic Education in Australia, unpublished PHD Thesis, Univ. Melbourne, 1956, p.45.
[17] David L Hull, "Darwinism and Historiography" in Thomas F. Glick, (Ed.), The Comparative Reception of Darwinism, University of Chicago Press, 1988, p.392
[18] Collins, God’s Earth, Op.Cit. p.32, citing Colman T Barry (ed.), Readings in Church History, Vol III, Paramus, N.J.: Newman Press, p.74.)
[19] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p.196
[20] A.G. Austin, Op. Cit., p.198, citing John Morely, The Life of William Ewart Gladstone, Vol II, pp.508, 510-12.
[21] A.G. Austin Op. Cit., p. 198, note 82, citing W.H. Archer, Noctes Catholicae, p.2.
[22] A.G. Austin Op. Cit., p 203-204.
[23] A.G. Austin Op. Cit., pp 206-216
[24] A.G. Austin Op. Cit., pp 214 -217.
[25] Paul Collins, God’s Earth Religion as if matter really mattered, Dove, Harper Collins, 1995, page number not available here.
Churches are part of politics and usually back the establishment, as much through investment in property assets as through political policy. It is therefore inspiring to see this honorable departure from the mainstream church and mass-media-led arguments for population growth. In March 2009 the Public Affairs Commission released this discussion paper on key issues for Australia’s future, which recommended some responses to global and national environmental stresses. A summary of this paper is attached, with a reference to the General Synod web site where the whole paper may be accessed.
The author of this paper is John Langmore, an Anglican and ex-ALP senator ffrom the ACT. It is a very worthy contribution to the "Population Debate". We present here the original document that gave rise to some sensational reporting, such as "Anglican Church accused of paganism, advocating genocide". Our publishing of this paper does not mean that candobetter.org has any religious affiliation or belief. (Candobetter.org editor)
Prepared by the Public Affairs Commission
of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia
March 2010
In March 2009 the Public Affairs Commission released a discussion paper on key issues for Australia’s future, which recommended some responses to global and national environmental stresses. A summary of this paper is attached, with a reference to the General Synod web site where the whole paper may be accessed.
Now the Commission seeks to assist consideration of population growth in a way that is consistent with our Christian faith and it is hoped will encourage integrated responses. Population growth is a controversial and sensitive topic, and one about which many fear to speak publicly, but it is fundamental to the challenges we face, globally and in Australia. Globally there is concern about the projected increase in population from 6.8 billion now to 9.2 billion by 2050 (1). In Australia there is concern about the recent official projection that Australia’s population will increase from 22 million now to 35 million by 2050. Consumption and environmental impact increase with population. These population increases will be taking place in a finite world that has not yet been able to agree on reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid potentially catastrophic temperature increase and climate change. There is hope: a serious debate about population growth has very recently begun in Australia. This paper provides a brief overview and encouragement for Christians to become informed on the issue and to contribute to the debate.
Most people in developed countries, including Australia, have benefited hugely from the resources of the Earth. Until recently we did not have compelling evidence of the problems caused by the growth in human numbers and consumption, but now we do. Our awareness makes us responsible to do our best for the future. This is not about guilt for the past, but about responsibility for the future. We continue to celebrate the joys of children, families, communities, and the wonderful natural world around us but now, in words from Lambeth, with a much clearer awareness of our <‘God given mandate to care for, look after and protect God's creation’ (see below), and a focus on the beautiful expression of Thanksgiving 5 in our Prayer Book:
‘Loving God, we thank you for this world of wonder and delight,
You have given it to us to care for, so that all your creatures may enjoy its bounty,
Lord our God, we give you thanks and praise.’
The Commission commends the following statement prepared by the Environment Working Group of the Australian Anglican General Synod, in the context of action concerning the Canon for Protection of the Environment which was passed by the 14th General Synod (2007), accessible on the General Synod web site and attached to this paper.
‘The bond between Creator and creation underlies our whole relationship with God and it is clear from scripture that this bond is not just with humanity but with the whole of creation (e.g. John 1: 3; Romans 8: 20-21). As a consequence, it is essential that the Church takes this relationship seriously and seeks to express it rightly and fully, remembering that those whose words result in relevant action are blessed (James 1: 22-25). Our generation is faced with the dual threats of human induced climate change and the highest extinction rate in human history. In recognising that God sustains and saves all creation, and appoints people as stewards, we are called to honour God through acting with care and respect not only for other people but for all the earth. As the declaration to the Anglican Communion of the 2002 Global Congress on the Stewardship of Creation argues, “We come together as a community of faith. Creation calls us, our vocation as God's redeemed drives us, the Spirit in our midst enlivens us, scripture compels us.” This is echoed in the 2007 Canon for the Protection of the Environment, which points out that “In Genesis it says that ‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till and to keep it’. In 1990 the Anglican Consultative Council gave modern form to this when it declared that one of the five marks of the mission of the church was ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and to sustain and renew the life of the Earth’.’
To this may be added that unless we take account of the needs of future life on Earth, there is a case that we break the eighth commandment – ‘Thou shalt not steal’. Christians are sometimes regarded by those outside the church as caring only about their own spiritual wellbeing to the exclusion of valuing and caring for the whole of life on Earth (2, pp. 5-6). In contrast, we draw attention here to very clear statements on the public record from our church leadership at the highest level:
The resolutions from the 1998 Lambeth Conference (of the Bishops of the world-wide Anglican Communion, convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury) included the following strong statement:
i. that unless human beings take responsibility for caring for the earth, the consequences will be catastrophic because of:
overpopulation
unsustainable levels of consumption by the rich
poor quality and shortage of water
air pollution
eroded and impoverished soil
forest destruction
plant and animal extinction;ii. that the loss of natural habitats is a direct cause of genocide amongst millions of indigenous peoples and is causing the extinction of thousands of plant and animal species. Unbridled capitalism, selfishness and greed cannot continue to be allowed to pollute, exploit and destroy what remains of the earth's indigenous habitats;
iii. that the future of human beings and all life on earth hangs in balance as a consequence of the present unjust economic structures, the injustice existing between the rich and the poor, the continuing exploitation of the natural environment and the threat of nuclear self-destruction;
iv. that the servant-hood to God's creation is becoming the most important responsibility facing humankind and that we should work together with people of all faiths in the implementation of our responsibilities;
v. that we as Christians have a God given mandate to care for, look after and protect God's creation.
In this Resolution, ‘overpopulation’ is the first-named reason for concern about the risks of catastrophic consequences for the earth. Resolutions from the Lambeth Conferences reaffirm the Biblical vision of Creation as a ‘web of inter-dependent relationships bound together in the Covenant which God has established with the whole earth and every living being’. They state that ‘human beings are …. co-partners with the rest of Creation ….with responsibility to make personal and corporate sacrifices for the common good of all Creation’. Relevant resolutions from the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences are attached in full to the March 2009 PAC paper.
On 13 October 2009 in the lead-up to the Copenhagen conference on climate change, the Archbishop of Canterbury set out a Christian vision of how people can respond to the looming environmental crisis (3). He said that ‘living in a way that honours rather than threatens the planet is living out what it means to be made in the image of God. We do justice to what we are as human beings when we seek to do justice to the diversity of life around us; we become what we are supposed to be when we assume our responsibility for life continuing on earth. And that call to do justice brings with it the call to re-examine what we mean by growth and wealth.’ Then ‘Our response to the crisis needs to be, in the most basic sense, a reality check, a re-acquaintance with the facts of our interdependence with the material world and a rediscovery of our responsibility for it. And this is why the apparently small-scale action that changes personal habits and local possibilities is so crucial. When we believe in transformation at the local and personal level, we are laying the surest foundations for change at the national and international level.’ Part of this is to ‘change our habits enough to make us more aware of the diversity of life around us’, make sure we watch the changing of the seasons on the earth’s surface, and ‘ask constantly how we can restore a sense of association with the material place and time and climate we inhabit and are part of…. The Christian story lays out a model of reconnection with an alienated world’.
In tune with this is the earlier writing of the cultural historian and eco-theologian Thomas Berry, offering a new perspective that recasts our understanding of science, technology, politics, religion, ecology and education. He shows why it is important for us to respond to the need for renewal of the earth, and suggests what we must do (particularly through education) to break free of the drive for a misguided dream of progress. His book ‘ The Dream of the Earth’(4) shows how the convergence of modern science and spiritual and religious affinity for creation can lead to a new covenant of ethical responsibility for the natural world. In this, science is seen not in its familiar role of taking the earth apart so as to manipulate it, but as synthesizer, providing the basis for a metareligious vision and enabling us to see ‘the integral majesty of the natural world’ and the wonder of the universe (pp. 95,98). This underpins the creative future he sees for humankind.
There is a wide appreciation in Christian traditions of our need to be better stewards. A number of Diocesan documents and resources are available to inspire liturgy and help towards action. The Environment Working Group of the General Synod is compiling liturgical and theological resource lists for ready access, and will be facilitating the sharing of action plans. Some examples of evangelical contributions are ‘Environment – A Christian Response’ and ‘Christian Ministry in a Changing Climate – Report to Synod’ (both at http://www.sie.org.au/tag/environment and awaiting an update) and the Declaration on Creation Stewardship and Climate Change from the Micah Network, July 2009.
However, to change mindset and act accordingly is an enormous challenge. On 13 December 2009 during the Copenhagen conference on climate change the Archbishop of Canterbury preached on casting out fear and acting for the sake of love (5). He said that ‘we cannot show the right kind of love for our fellow-humans unless we also work at keeping the earth as a place that is a secure home for all people for future generations.’ ‘We are faced with the consequences of generations of failure to love the earth as we should.’ ‘We are not doomed to carry on in a downward spiral of the greedy, addictive, loveless behaviour that has helped to bring us to this point. Yet it seems that fear still rules our hearts and imaginations. We have not yet been able to embrace the cost of the decisions we know we must make. We are afraid because we don’t know how we can survive without the comforts of our existing lifestyle. We are afraid that new policies will be unpopular with the national electorate. We are afraid that younger and more vigorous economies will take advantage of us – or we are afraid that older, historically dominant economies will use the excuse of ecological responsibility to deny us our right to proper and just development.’ The Archbishop ended by emphasizing that love casts out fear and with a plea not to be afraid, but to ask how we show that we love God’s creation, and how we learn to trust one another in a world of limited resources through justice and caring for our neighbour.
Moving directly to the topic of this paper, the theologian John Painter was invited to address the Commission in June 2008 to provide a theological vision that might stimulate and assist it to develop its work agenda. The paper he presented, ‘An Anglican approach to Public Affairs in a Global context’, has now been re-shaped for publication (6). In it he recognises that we are inextricably part of one world, and that human activity in one place affects life in every place. Earth is the fragile web of life of which we, and all life, are part. The narrative of the creation in Genesis contains within it an affirmation of the intrinsic worth of the creation as a whole and of its component parts; Psalms such as 24, 95 and 104 celebrate the value of the Earth and its parts; and the Prologue of the Gospel of John sets both the creation of the world and the incarnation of the Word in the context of God’s love for the world. The paper expresses the need for us to hear the call for justice for the Earth and all its creatures, and to celebrate the marvels and mysteries of creation and of the loving Creator whose bounties we enjoy, while also ensuring that all of Earth’s creatures share in this bounty.
With the burgeoning human population now posing a threat to all life on the planet, Professor Painter considers there is a need to develop ‘a more adequate theology of sexuality’. (He observes that churches and religious groups generally have not given a constructive lead on the issue of human population growth, and confesses that he can see no solution to the threat to all life if this growth is not checked. In his view, while human sexuality will continue to find expression in a deep and abiding human love as a basis of community or family, and procreation and the birth of children in the context of a loving relationship remain very important, these need to be within limits that allow other species to flourish. He concludes that only then will there be a rich and diverse Earth for our children and our children’s children to live on.)
Given all these expressions, it is very sobering to realize that the United Nations projects another 2.4 billion people to be living on the Earth by about 2050 (1). As yet there is no agreement on enough action to safeguard the wellbeing of the Earth, and the current rates of extinction of life forms are comparable with the five great extinctions of the distant past, the last being 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared.
Population is an emotive and controversial topic. It has been virtually a taboo subject, the ‘elephant in the room’. Reasons why people prefer to be silent about it include:
. Many benefit from population growth in the short term – businesses sell more products and make more profit, builders build and sell more homes, but demand still outstrips housing supply and anyone who owns a home benefits because the value of the home increases.
- However those who do not own their own homes, particularly young people and the poorer members of our community, will find it increasingly difficult to achieve ownership. This is a serious social justice issue.
.Population growth readily translates to economic growth, which is a prime goal of governments.
-However, economic growth for a nation does not necessarily mean growth in individual incomes. Over the past seven financial years, real GDP has grown by 23% but real GDP per person has grown by less than half that (7). Questions need to be asked – Who really are the beneficiaries of economic growth once a certain (and not particularly high) level of personal/family financial security has been achieved? Should ongoing economic growth be an end in itself - and increase in population used as a means to achieve it? Does the community as a whole benefit from it? Are there alternative economic paradigms?
.Some consider that a bigger population makes Australia more secure and gives the nation more international influence, though it may not be diplomatically attractive to express such motivation. These kinds of considerations will have contributed to the increase in the immigration rate, and also to the introduction by the previous Government of a Baby Bonus, which has been continued and even increased by the current Government.
-There are good counter examples of nations with significantly smaller populations who contribute strongly to civilization and carry much international influence (8, p. 117 ).
. Some consider that an increased birth rate is a necessary means of helping to compensate for the ageing of population which is now taking place in Australia. The introduction of the Baby Bonus may well be an outcome of such thinking. One of the world’s leading thinkers and activists in economic development, Jeffrey Sachs, addresses this concern which is basically that the social security systems of the rich world will collapse as more retirees live longer and have fewer workers to support them. He points out that in the high-income world the ratio of those older than 65 to those aged 15 to 65, called the old-age dependency ratio, will increase from 23% to 46% by 2050, and that this will indeed impose stresses on pension systems, but ‘it is simply not true that the costs are likely to be large’. First, with slower population growth or even decline, there will be large social savings in major infrastructure investment that was previously needed to keep up with population; second, retirement ages are likely to rise gradually by a few years, particularly as older people enjoy more healthy life years; and continued improvements in productivity may well mean we can work less in total, some of the returns being taken as greater leisure time (9, pp. 200-202).
- In the context of unsustainable global population growth it is inconsistent and arguably irresponsible to provide financial incentives for population increase.
. Some business leaders seek substantial skilled immigration to provide a good selection of potential employees with skills needed for their companies. Governments may also find this an attractive way to overcome shortfalls in essential services personnel such as health workers.
- The far more constructive alternative is to plan ahead and train current citizens in the fields that are needed, so improving total employment prospects for existing Australians and also the opportunities for more skilled and satisfying work. Risks associated with oversupply in the job market include unemployment of both skilled and unskilled people, with personal trauma and unproductive costs to the national budget. There is also a need to be concerned about depriving less developed countries, from which many skilled migrants come, of people who are needed in their home countries.
. Some consider that the basic problem is consumption, and growth in consumption, not population growth.
- Consumption does indeed need to be restrained, but that cannot take the pressure off population as a key underlying issue. With global population growth continuing at a very significant rate, reductions in consumption per person in developed countries (with total population about 1.2 billion out of 6.8 billion globally) are unlikely to be sufficient to achieve reduced global consumption as population, incomes and consumption per person rise in rapidly developing countries with their much higher populations. The total impact on the environment arises from average consumption per person multiplied by total number of people. Both consumption and population need to be addressed, and very sensitively, given the benefits received by rich nations from their use of global resources.
. Many Australians have migrated here and they do not feel it is fair to ‘pull up the drawbridge’ when others want to come.
-In response, it is not expected that Australia would want or need to close off immigration. Our country has been greatly enriched by migrants over a long period, and we are a successful multicultural society. There is scope to increase our intake of genuine refugees (which is very small compared with total immigration – see next section) and continue to enable family reunion, while decreasing total immigration to a level consistent with scientific advice on the long term carrying capacity and preservation of the biodiversity of the Australian continent.
. Australia has obligations to other nations, particularly island nations, who will be adversely affected by climate change.
- True. However, it is also true that Australia will be one of the nations affected most severely by climate change and that some of the island nations have high population growth which will be unsustainable on their land area regardless of climate change. This is part of the global population picture and, in addition to accepting refugees, we need to support such countries in restraining their population growth to achieve balance with their countries’ natural resources.
. Immigration is a topic on which some extreme views have been expressed in Australia in the past, and people are very afraid of being perceived as selfish, racist or xenophobic; some extend this to express the view that, although they recognize the overarching significance of population growth, the church should not speak about population for fear of being misinterpreted.
- If fear prevents us from speaking the truth for the greater good, out of love for the whole earth including all our fellow human beings, are we being true to our faith? Again, the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury encourage us not to be afraid, but to ask how we show that we love God’s creation, and how we learn to trust one another in a world of limited resources through justice and caring for our neighbour (5). Justice and care take many forms.
- Crispin Hull writes ‘Very few people who oppose higher population and high immigration want a Hansonite revival. Indeed, many would happily see more refugees and much lower general immigration. But we do want to see some sense and some moral purpose in Australia’s population policy’ (9).
. Birth control education and facilities are sensitive for some church members because they disagree with the extent of services offered, in Australia and overseas, especially in developing countries with large family sizes and burgeoning populations.
- Balancing such matters can be very hard, but the big picture is of overpopulation. Isn’t it important to support those seeking to enable women and men to choose family size - those who, through voluntary means, are trying to achieve the greatest good – for the individual woman, for the wellbeing of all her children, for her nation and for the world as a whole - through education and reproductive health services including contraceptives - as advocated by Sachs (9, Chapter 8).
. Some church members wish to avoid discomfort in relation to colleagues of other denominations or faiths, whom they expect to reject birth control measures, and they do not want to cause tension on this account.
- The big picture is of over-population and the need to care for the future of all life on earth. Love needs to drive out fear so that those who recognise the population problem speak out about it, in love. The responses of some of our colleagues may surprise. Some of them, too, may be fearing to acknowledge publicly what they recognize in their hearts.
Briefly, the facts:
. The resources of the Earth are being used unsustainably
. Global human population is huge and still increasing rapidly
. Human activity is the root cause of current environmental stress and climate change; these threaten
- the survival of poorer people, and
- major extinctions of other life forms by the end of this century.
The fundamental problem:
. Global population growth is unsustainable. On a finite planet, if the rate is not reduced rapidly, there will be huge problems for humanity and other life forms.
This paper offers a brief overview of issues and some responses, globally and for Australia.
Many of the costs of overpopulation are not directly concerned with money, but involve changes in society and its interaction with the natural world. These and a wide range of other issues are discussed by O’Connor and Lines (8), and they have been addressed in the special series of ABC TV 7.30 Reports centering around Australia Day 2010 (25 – 29 January 2010, accessible on the internet, ref.10). The growing congestion of cities, destined to become worse, means much time lost in commuting, more polluted suburbs, denser housing and the loss for many of suburban gardens in which to relax and still have some frequent communion with nature – which in turn means children and future citizens are likely to have less empathy with the natural world. Other consequences include the build-up and crowding of Australia’s narrow and beautiful coastal strip, with destruction of most of its natural forest adjacent to beaches, and the forgoing of good arable land because it is being built upon. Water supply is already a major challenge for many parts of Australia and it will become an even greater challenge as climate change intensifies and population increases; restrictions apply now in nearly all major population centres as well as agricultural areas. The public in general do not want these kinds of negative changes to their quality of life. Polls have also shown that the majority of people do not want large immigration programs. O’Connor and Lines put the view that minimizing individual consumption is a poor answer if population is not stabilised. They say that if citizens save water, for example, it will not mean that their neighbours get more water for their gardens, or that tougher restrictions will be postponed. Rather it will enable the population to be increased, and even lead eventually to worse shortages of water and other environmental disasters (8, p.182). A challenging thought.
The human population grew from about 230 million when Christ was born (9, p.60, 64) to 6.8 billion now. Factors such as better living conditions, nutrition and health care have ensured steadily improving life expectancy. According to the United Nations’ most recent revision of World Population Prospects (2006, ref. 1), total global population is projected to reach 9.2 billion before there is likelihood of overall stabilization and then decline. The medium variant projected increase from now to 2050 is approximately equivalent to the size of the world population in 1950 (1).
The UN Report confirms the diversity of demographic dynamics among the different world regions. The population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion, and this population is ageing, while virtually all population growth is occurring in the less developed regions and especially in the group of the 50 least developed countries, many of which are expected to age only moderately over the foreseeable future. There are distinct trends in fertility and mortality underlying these varied patterns of growth and changes in age structure. Below-replacement fertility prevails in the more developed regions and is expected to continue to 2050. Fertility is still high in most of the least developed countries and although it is expected to decline it will remain higher than the rest of the world. In the rest of the developing countries, fertility has declined markedly since the late 1960s and is expected to reach below-replacement levels by 2050 in the majority of them.
Realisation of the medium variant projections contained in the UN 2006 Revision Report depends urgently on ensuring that fertility continues to decline in developing countries. These projections assume that in the less developed countries as a whole, fertility will decrease from 2.75 to 2.05 children per woman from 2005-2010 to 2045-2050; and in the 50 least developed countries, from 4.63 to 2.50 children per woman. The UN states (1 , p.6) that to achieve such reductions it is essential that access to family planning expands in the poorest countries of the world; otherwise, if fertility were to remain constant at the levels estimated for 2000-2005, the population of the less developed regions would increase to 10.6 billion (instead of the 7.9 billion projected by assuming that fertility declines). World population would then rise to 11.8 billion. That would mean world population increasing by twice as many people as were alive in 1950.
There is no certainty of well-managed decline unless significant change in human behaviour takes place. The ‘green revolution’ initiated some decades ago may have kept pace with increased human need for food so far, but there are serious doubts that the peak number of people could be fed by means of more increases in production (11). An October 2009 report under the auspices of the Royal Society says that many and major changes would be required if this were to be achieved (12). Agricultural productivity currently depends on fertilizers based on fossil fuels, there are severe limitations on increases in agricultural land and water for crops and increases come at the expense of other forms of life. Up to 50% of the Earth’s photosynthetic potential is directly appropriated for human use, and land that is being cleared now is either increasingly inhospitable or home to precious and unique stocks of biodiversity, such as tropical rainforests (9, p. 68). We are approaching the limits of what science can realistically achieve, and the technologies needed now may well be as much the social technologies of policy and administration in adapting to limitations as they are about technologies of production itself (11).
A wide range of issues relevant to this paper are addressed by Jeffrey Sachs in his book ‘Common Wealth – Economics for a Crowded Planet’ (9). Basic observations are that the scale of human economic activity has risen eight times since 1950, will rise possibly another six times by 2050, and is causing environmental destruction on a scale that was impossible at any earlier stage of human history (9, p.29). Scientists have estimated that if habitat conversion and other destructive human activities continue at their present rates (which is hard to avoid if population keeps increasing, poor people in the poorest countries struggle to survive, and standard of living increases in newly industrialising nations), half the species on Earth could be extinct or unsaveable by the end of this century (2, pp.4-5 and Chapter 8). And we are causing this in the face of evidence that a decline of biological diversity may render many parts of the world less hospitable, less resilient and less productive for human beings as well (9, p.29).
In response Sachs names three basic goals: environmental sustainability, population stabilization, and ending extreme poverty. These are the essence of the Millenium Development Goals (9, p.32). Here we concentrate on what he has to say about population stabilization (which is strongly linked to the other two goals).
. He notes the ‘tyranny of the present’ when it comes to population growth. For example, impoverished parents often have many children to ensure their old age security or perhaps in the hope of obtaining more communal land or other resources, but this may well come at the expense of the children’s own wellbeing – the parents cannot provide effectively for the nutritional, health and educational needs of six or seven children, a not uncommon family size (9, p.41). A household’s decision on fertility also depends on widespread cultural norms, the availability of education and contraceptive means through public health facilities, and other matters determined by public policy. Decentralised decision-making of individual households can easily lead to excessive population growth. Sachs argues that the rapid growth of populations in poor countries (commonly a doubling in a generation) hinders their economic development, condemns the children to continued poverty and threatens global political stability (9, Chapter 7).
. Global population dynamics are complex (9, Chapter 7, pp 159-182). There is nothing automatic about a transition to lower fertility following a decline in child mortality and, when it does occur, the total fertility rate declines with a lag leading to a population bulge before a low fertility/low mortality stage can be reached. Governments have played a key role in the rapid decline of child mortality, and they have also had to step in, or need to, to promote a rapid decline in fertility to accompany the decline in mortality.
. He gives four compelling reasons why the poorest countries need to speed up the demographic transition and why we need to help them do it: families cannot surmount extreme poverty without a decline in the fertility rate; neither can poor countries; the ecological and closely related income consequences of rapid population growth are devastating; and finally there are threats to the rest of the world, raising pressure for mass migration, and increasing risks of local conflict, violence and war (9, pp.175-6).
. There is hope. Public policies designed to promote a voluntary reduction of fertility rates can have ‘an enormous effect’, benefiting both present and future generations. Sachs names nine factors that have proved time and again to be important in leading to a rapid decline in fertility rates, while noting that not all are needed: improving child survival, education of girls, empowerment of women, access to reproductive health services, green revolution, urbanization, legal abortion, old age security, and public leadership. His basic advice is that development policy for a high fertility region should integrate aid for economic development with aid for family planning (9, p.184).
. Nevertheless, it has been difficult to obtain support from rich countries to help poor countries speed up their demographic transition. Sachs outlines (9, p177 – 182) the way in which support and results have waxed and waned with political change. Intergovernmental conferences on population and development were held in 1974, 1984 and 1994, and the multidimensional plan of action from the last of these forms one of the most important Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The UN Millennium Project’s special report on sexual and reproductive health (2006) came up with an estimate of the scale of donor effort needed to ensure broad coverage of contraception and family planning, also safe childbirth, and it was approximately 0.06% of the income of the donor countries. But the financial goals have not yet been met. Contributing much more to this cause would be a very effective and compassionate way for Australia to help people in poor nations, and their environments.
The book ‘Overloading Australia’ provides a wealth of information, insight and references (8).
In Australia, for people who have currently lived their three score years and ten, there were approximately:
- 4.4 million people when their parents were born (1910)
- 7.0 million when they were born (1940)
- 12.5 million when their children were born (1970)
- 19.2 million when their grandchildren were born (2000)
(ABS, Australian Historical Population Statistics Catalogue 3105.0.65.001). There are more than 22 million now, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics population clock. That growth has kept accelerating. Our population growth rate in percentage terms is the highest in the developed world (2.1% for the year to June 2009, ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics, Catalogue 3101.0), and is now at a level typical of developing countries. It is higher than growth rates in eg Indonesia, China and India. We in Australia are part of the global overpopulation issue.
In 2008 when the Australian population exceeded 21 million there was no significant public comment or policy discussion. A startling official projection for increase in Australia’s population, to 35 million people in the next four decades, was publicised in September 2009 prior to the formal release of the 2010 Intergenerational Report of the Department of the Treasury (13). This was significantly higher than the previous official projection from 2007, only two years previously; and Dr Ken Henry, Secretary of the Treasury, expressed personal pessimism on 22 October 2009 (at a Business Leaders’ Forum at the Queensland University of Technology) about Australia’s capacity to be able to deal with environmental sustainability while housing and absorbing this big population. Meanwhile the Prime Minister, on the ABC 7.30 Report of 22 October 2009, said initially that he thought it was good news that Australia’s population is growing – good for national security long term and for what Australia can sustain as a nation; recently he has been more cautious, having acknowledged that the demands for coping with substantial increases will be ‘massive’. The current Opposition Leader has been quoted as saying that he would like to see as many people are possible given the chance to live in Australia (14).
The composition of Australia’s population increase is food for thought. In the most recent year for which the full data are available on the ABS web site (2007-2008, ABS Catalogue 3412.0 released 28 July 2009):
the population grew by 1.71% or 359,300 people, to reach a total of 21.431 million (note that this rate increased to 2.1% in the year to June 2009, Cat. 3101.0)
net overseas migration added about 213,700 (and this is excluding people on student and work visas, many of whom become eligible to stay), while
natural increase added 145,600 per year (births minus deaths).
It was the third year in which net overseas migration had exceeded natural increase. The numbers carry major implications for the growth of the Australian population well into the future. While rapid growth is being encouraged by key political leaders, expressions of concern are now coming from a serving politician, the Federal MP for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, who has put forward a 14 point plan for population reform (15), and the Federal MP for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, who has called for a national discussion about population, noting that planning, infrastructure, transport, health, education etc share population as a critical element (16). Concern has been expressed for many years from the scientific community (eg 17, 18, which both indicate the Australian population is already around the level of what can be sustained), some public figures such as the former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery (19, 20), former Premier of NSW Bob Carr (21) , and from bodies such as Sustainable Population Australia and the Australian Conservation Foundation (22). But until very recently the discussion did not appear to have traction. This has changed following the Treasury’s 2010 Intergenerational Report projection of 36 million by 2050 and a debate is now taking place. Population projection is not simple and the projection of 35 or 36 million has been queried as inconsistent with underlying facts and hence too low (23). Furthermore, what happens after 2050 also needs to be in mind, because there would be momentum to continue growing.
The question must be asked whether our current and projected population growth is fair to future generations of Australians and to other life in the environments our descendants will have to inhabit. This does not imply a lack of concern for those in need in other countries – on the contrary. Compared with total immigration, humanitarian migration into Australia has been very small – about 14,000 per year, but of these only about 4000 to 6000 were refugees by the United Nations’ definition (8, p.73). There is scope for Australia to respond more generously in humanitarian immigration, and it is likely to become necessary as population around the world continues to increase. Looking at the global situation of political, ethnic, religious and environmental refugees, numbers can be expected to increase and the manifold causes often include or centre around population pressure (ibid., p.74).
The Public Affairs Commission is of the view that the risks are too high to allow the numbers to run away in Australia without very serious consideration of the risks and the alternatives. In this very thirsty and thin-soiled continent there is a need for a national debate on Australia’s population, leading to a population policy consistent with the big picture for national and global environment and population, while supporting those in need. The debate has recently become lively and there have been many comments from knowledgeable people about the serious issues Australia must address if the nation is to absorb a major increase in population, including water shortages, land shortages, higher food and housing costs, stressed infrastructure in cities, degraded rivers (eg 10, the ABC 7.30 Report special series, 25 – 29 January 2009, archived and available on line).
It is not the role of this paper to prescribe population policy in detail. That is a responsibility for elected politicians, taking account of factors such as congestion, infrastructure and amenity, expert advice on Australia’s environmentally sustainable carrying capacity, and views in the electorate. We ask that our Government fulfil the responsibility to determine sustainable population policy and ensure that there would be no significant increases in environmental and social stress from any major increase.
Reflecting the debate, a responsible course would include:
. taking full account of Australia’s role in contributing to the global overpopulation/overconsumption problem, with its implications for greenhouse gas emissions and devastation of the global environment;
. reduction in total immigration rates while increasing the proportion of refugees and family reunion migrants in the total and
. removal of public incentives aimed at increasing the birth rate and replacing them with support for improvements in the capacity of parents to be fully attentive to their babies, eg by increasing paid maternal and paternal leave.
In addressing population policy, the following values are important to us:
Justice, not only for current Australians, but for our descendants and the other life on this land in all its beauty and diversity
Care for those in need and for the broadest wellbeing of human and other life, and
Sharing in a world of finite resources, building trust by showing justice and care (and love!) for our neighbours in other parts of the world.
Remaining silent about population issues, although one has concerns about them, is little different from supporting further overpopulation and ecological degradation. If people are not prepared to speak up, these things will happen. Given the high risks from global and national population growth, can any of the above reasons justify saying nothing while numbers continue to climb? Out of care for the whole Creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves, this paper argues that it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent.
It is, however, a challenge to participate in the debate. People with vested interests, who may not see the whole picture, can put forward plausible partial views. None of us particularly want to give up things we like, or expose ourselves to dismissive or angry reactions. This paper can only try to emphasise the big picture. It is sometimes difficult to keep the whole picture in view – but there is danger that a partial view, adopted for reasons that appeal in the short term, can lead to avoidance of long term responsibility.
We can each act individually, but to have an impact on the fundamental issue of population growth it is essential that governments establish sustainable population policy. Based on the big picture, it is hoped that this paper will encourage people to communicate to our Government their concerns about global and national population growth. We owe it to the whole Creation, including our own descendants. There is no time to lose.
Reinforcing recommendations from the March 2009 PAC discussion paper, we need as individuals to
. Grow in understanding of global and national environmental challenges, become acutely aware of the issues, and address them as a whole, with integrity.
. Be prepared to make personal and corporate sacrifices for the common good of all Creation: Change our own ways individually and collectively to reduce our own consumption, helped by others including Diocesan Environment Commissions and Registries.
But beyond that we need to communicate big picture population concerns to our Governments, asking them to
. Recognise the fundamental role of burgeoning population growth and related human consumption in causing unsustainable environmental stress globally and in Australia
Determine a sustainable population policy for Australia, which is fair and just for current and future Australians and for other life on this land and aims for the broad wellbeing of all. Halt any policy that provides an incentive specifically and primarily to increase Australia’s population, notably the Baby Bonus, while increasing paid maternal and paternal leave ; and reduce the overall level of immigration to fit with expert advice on the sustainable capacity of this land, while being more generous in our programs for refugees and family reunion.
. Effectively and compassionately improve the welfare of people in poor nations, and hence their environments, by contributing much more to restraining global population growth through voluntary means, via appropriate international channels including those of the United Nations. For high fertility regions, aid for family planning needs to be integrated with aid for development.
. Reject any assumption, clearly untenable in the longer term, that there has to be ongoing population growth in order to maintain economic growth as a prerequisite for human wellbeing.
**********
References (in addition to those in the March 2009 Public Affairs Commission paper referred to in the attachment)
1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘World Population Prospects – the 2006 Revision’, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf
2. Wilson, Edward O, The Creation – An Appeal To Save Life On Earth, W W Norton & Co, New York and London, 2006, 175 pages.
3. Williams, Rowan (Archbishop of Canterbury), ‘The Climate Crisis: Fashioning a Christian Response’, Lecture at Southwark Cathedral sponsored by the Christian environment group Operation Noah, 13 October 2009 (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2565)
4. Berry, Thomas, The Dream of the Earth, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1988, 247 pages.
5. Williams, Rowan (Archbishop of Canterbury), ‘Act for the sake of Love’, Sermon in Copenhagen Cathedral, 13 December 2009 ( http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2673)
6. Painter, John, ‘An Anglican Approach to Public Affairs in a Global Context’, to be published in St Mark’s Review, 2010 (2) No. 211.
7. Gittins, Ross, ‘Let’s think twice about growth by immigration’, Economics Editor, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 September 2009.
8. Mark O’Connor and William J Lines, Overloading Australia, published by Envirobook, Canterbury NSW 2008, and second edition 2010, 241pages.
9. Sachs, Jeffrey D, Common Wealth – Economics for a Crowded Planet, Penguin Books printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives, 2009, 386 pages.
10. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), The 7.30 Report, special series of programs 25 – 29 January 2010, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/archives/2010/730_201001.htm
11. Stewart, Jenny, ‘Limit to what science can do’, The Canberra Times, 26 October 2009.
12. Royal Society, London, ‘Reaping the Benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture’ October 2009, 86pages, http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/
13. Department of the Treasury, Intergenerational Report 2010, http://www.apo.org.au/research/intergenerational-report-2010
14. Hull, Crispin, ‘Watch this space of ours, or we may just populate and perish’, The Canberra Times, Forum p.19, 30 January 2010.
15. Thomson, Kelvin, Federal Member for Wills, ‘There is an alternative to runaway population – Kelvin Thomson’s 14 Point Plan for population Reform’, 11 November 2009, http://www.kelvinthomson.com.au/speeches.php
16. Thomson, Kevin, Federal Member for Menzies, ‘How many people do we need’, presentation to the Australian Environment Foundation Conference, Canberra 20 October 2009, http://aefweb.info/data/Kevin%20Andrews%20presentation.doc
17. Australian Academy of Science and authors, Population 2040 Australia’s Choice, published by the Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1995, 144 pages.
18. Ten Commitments – Reshaping the Lucky Country’s Environment, Editors David Lindenmayer, Stephen Dovers, Molly Harriss Olson and Steve Morton, CSIRO Publishing, 2008, 237 pages.
19. Flannery, Tim, ‘Now or Never – A sustainable future for Australia’, Quarterly Essay Issue 31, 2008, pp.1-66.
20. Flannery, Tim, ‘Beautiful Lies – Population and Development in Australia’, Quarterly Essay Issue 9, 2003, pp. 1-73.
21. Carr, Bob, ‘Perish the thought that we can handle a bigger population’, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, 19 November 2009.
22. Australian Conservation Foundation, ‘Population and Demographic Change’, http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2110
23. Hull, Crispin, ‘Population projection not so simple’, The Canberra Times 6 October 2009.
*********
Responses to Global and National Environmental Stresses *
The facts
. The resources of the Earth are being used unsustainably – fossil fuels will run out, land cannot be cleared indefinitely for agriculture, fresh water used on the crops to feed more people cannot be drunk or available to other life
. Global population has increased from about 300 million when Christ was born to more than 6.8 billion now, and is still rising rapidly; Australia’s own population has increased three-fold in the last 70 years, and continues to increase rapidly
. Consumption is increasing with population
. Consumption (directly or indirectly) causes environmental stresses and increases greenhouse gas concentrations
. Greenhouse gas increases cause climate change
. Increased human activity is the root cause of environmental stress/climate change
. Environmental stress and climate change threaten
the welfare and even survival of poorer people
major extinctions of other life forms by the end of this century
. We have already passed the ‘tipping point’ of greenhouse gas concentrations for serious climate change, and with concentrations continuing to rise, the Earth is approaching a ‘point of no return’, which cannot be predicted accurately, from which no action we take would be able to avert catastrophe.
The fundamental cause
Global population growth is unsustainable.
Australia’s rate of population growth is one of the highest in the developed world.
What responsibility do we bear?
Resolutions from the Lambeth Conference 1998 reaffirm the Biblical vision of Creation as a ‘web of inter-dependent relationships bound together in the Covenant which God has established with the whole earth and every living being’. They state that ‘humans beings are both co-partners with the rest of Creation and living bridges between heaven and earth, with responsibility to make personal and corporate sacrifices for the common good of all Creation’. The conference recognized that ‘unless human beings take responsibility for caring for the earth, the consequences will be catastrophic’.
What can we do?
It is within the power of each of us to do the following:
change our own ways substantially and quickly to lessen our impact as individuals and as the church, using the Diocesan resources prepared by the Environment Commission and the Registry, educating ourselves also in other ways about reducing our consumption, and encouraging each other to action along the way support conservation of life forms and ecosystems in our own environment and work for environmental causes that do so nationally and internationally, and become acutely aware and talk to others, in our parishes and in the wider community, about the kinds of issues addressed in the Public Affairs Commission paper.*
And importantly we can, as individuals and collectively, encourage our Government(s) to:
Apply integrated thinking to environmental issues, recognizing that pressures linked to increases in population are the fundamental cause of them.
Place economic policy firmly in the overall framework of environmental management and well-being, not the other way around, and recognize that population policy is necessary to achieving balance.
Set policy with incentives and regulations that will rapidly achieve much greater environmental sensitivity and efficiency in the use of energy, water and land for agriculture.
Give very high priority to fostering large scale use of technologies that will enable major greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Reject the assumption that there has to be population growth in order to maintain economic growth as a pre-requisite for human wellbeing.
Do the utmost towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050 and 25% below 2000 levels by 2020 (a fair share for Australia of a global target of 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalents, which might for example enable the three-dimensional structure of the Great Barrier Reef to survive)
And internationally:
Play a leading role with increased funding to protect the hottest spots of biodiversity in the world, ensuring that this investment improves long term living standards of people who would otherwise find it necessary to convert more habitat and thus destroy more of the other life forms with which we share the Earth
Work vigorously at the climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 for agreement on global and national targets that will avert global catastrophe
Contribute further to restraining global population growth through the UN Fund for Population Activities and other appropriate international channels.
Australia’s share of distressed people needs to be welcomed warmly, but the main focus needs to be on aid for improvements in other countries. There is a powerful case for a substantial increase in aid by our Government and by individuals in Australia. Education broadly underpins human wellbeing and continues to deserve strong support, but there is a special case now for an aid focus that enables conservation of biodiversity at the same time as it enables people to achieve appropriate and sustainable living standards.
* This brochure is based on a paper released early in 2009 by the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican General Synod, for discussion within the Church and the wider community. The full paper with references and bibliography is accessible on the General Synod web site at http://www.anglican.org.au/governance.cfm?SID=2
CANON NO. 11, 2007
PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT CANON 2007
A Canon to assist in the protection of the environment
The General Synod prescribes as follows:
Preamble
A. This Church acknowledges God’s sovereignty over his creation through the Lord
Jesus Christ.
B. In Genesis it says that “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of
Eden to till it and keep it.” In 1990 the Anglican Consultative Council gave modern
form to this task when it declared that one of the five marks of the mission of the
Church was "to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and to sustain and renew
the life of the earth”.
C. This Canon gives form to this mark of mission in the life of the Anglican Church of
Australia.
D. This Church recognises the importance of the place of creation in the history of
salvation.
E. This Church acknowledges the custodianship of the indigenous peoples of this land .
F. This Church recognizes that climate change is a most serious threat to the lives of the
present and future generations. Accordingly, this Canon seeks to reduce the release
of greenhouse gases by this Church and its agencies.
Short title and principal canon
1. This Canon may be cited as the “Protection of the Environment Canon 2007”.
Mechanisms to assist in protecti ng the environment
2. (1) Every diocese which adopts this Canon undertakes to reduce its
environmental footprint by increasing the water and energy efficiency of its
current facilities and operations and by ensuring that environmental
sustainability is an essential consideration in the development of any new
facilities and operations, with a view to ensuring that the diocese minimalises
its contribution to the mean global surface temperature rise .
(2) Every diocese which adopts this Canon undertakes to est ablish such
procedures and process such as an environment commission, or similar body
as are necessary to assist the diocese and its agencies to:
(a) give leadership to the Church and its people in the way in which they
can care for the environment,
(b) use the resources of God’s creation appropriately and to consider and
act responsibly about the effect of human activity on God’s creation,
(c) facilitate and encourage the education of Church members and others
about the need to care for the environment, use the resources of God’s
creation properly and act responsibly about the effect of human activity
on God’s creation, and,
(d) advise and update the diocese on the targets needed to meet the
commitment made in sub-section (1);
(e) urge its people to pray in regard to these matters.
Reporting
3. (1) Every diocese which adopts this Canon undertakes to report to each ordinary
session of the General Synod as to its progress in reducing its environmental
footprint in order to reach the undertaking made in acco rdance with subsection
(1) of section 2.
(2) Any report will outline the targets that were set, the achievements made, and
difficulties encountered.
Adoption of Canon by Diocese
4. The provisions of this Canon affect the order and good government of the C hurch
within a diocese and the Canon shall not come into force in any diocese unless and
until the diocese by ordinance adopts the Canon.
The deadly nightshade flower - an old symbol for falsehood.
Religion is unethical. It doesn't teach life's grey uncertainties between right and wrong. It preaches a belief system to perpetuate influence of that belief system made of invented rules and myths, and of course prejudice, politics, cronyism and control.
History riddled with it.
Scripture is brainwashing. How are Ron Hubbard's scientological teachings any less dogmatic than the anglican King James Bible or the Uniting Church's Good News for Modern Man Bible?
What is the purpose of projecting a guiding deity? It is to focus the faith of a religious order on a omnipresent mythical guardian so as to charm, enamour, ensnare, spellbind insecure and vulnerable people? Does it just prey on hope of the vulnerable seeking hope?...to thereafter insist on an absolute pledge of life-long loyalty?
Church is a form of cult, with milder varying degrees of orthodoxy, reliant upon the premise of truisms and a methodology of entrapment. So what has 'church' now meant to mean? Medieval christianity pervades our modern society unquestioningly more than we realise. But it has become increasingly irrelevant to the humanistic needs of modern society, evidenced by the demise of patronage and absence of youth attendance.
Children seek direction in life and that is when they are most vulnerable. If religion was barred from children until they were old enough think independently (say 16), then perhaps religion could lay claim that it is not a form of indoctrination and brainwashing, but it ain't. Religious orders intentionally grab children at an early age, knowing that they have them for life.
This warrants public questioning as is currently occurring and these churches are running scared. Old religious orders need to comply with ethical and moral standards of our 21st Century society, else they deserve labeling as fundamental extremists in the same category as the Afghani Taliban.
It is about time ethics, humanism and freethought were taught in schools by independent qualified experts. Humanism is an approach in study that focuses on human values and concerns. Freethought is about forming opinions on the basis of science, logic, and reason, rather than being blindly influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma.
Faith? Spirituality? Personally, give me pantheism any day. But I'd sooner worship a fly crawling up the wall before turning desperately to religion.
Religions are all about one group of people trying to dominate others. It is all about power and wars have been fought over it. It preys on the vulnerable. It starts with children while they are vulnerable and brainwashes them. Catholicism is all about controlling people through guilt. Each religion doesn't recognise the other. Look what happened last month at the Mosque of Cordoba.
Religion has held a monopoly on spirituality for eons. Now that our society is free thinking and free spirited, people are realising that their are spiritual alternatives to religion - ones that are orthodoxy-free and diety-free. And of course the dominant religions are worried of losing their sphere of influence. The Sydney Anglican diocese claims a new controversial trial of secular ethics classes has ''decimated'' protestant scripture classes in the 10 NSW schools where it has been introduced as an alternative for non-religious children, with the classes losing about 47 per cent of enrolled students. (Scripture classes lose half of students to ethics, say Anglicans)
The anglican church is so desperate that it has created a fund-raising website to ''protect SRE'' (special religious education). The website says the values underpinning ''Australia's moral framework.''
Morality? Well, another week, another dodgy priest exposed. The christian church has the reputation of a pedophilic cult. Go to any newspaper online and type the word 'priest'. Woa Hoa!Start with the Sydney Morning Herald...
'Priest defrocked over sexual misconduct' (today's headlines)
AN ANGLICAN priest has been defrocked after a professional standards board discovered he had engaged in multiple sexual liaisons, including with at least one woman from his parish.
'Flood of new priest abuse allegations'
A Belgian committee probing allegations of pedophilia by priests has been flooded with complaints since the resignation of a bishop who admitted abusing a boy.
'German priest to leave US in abuse case'
A German priest has been suspended and ordered home from a posting in the US as he faces allegations he abused teenage girls in Germany two decades ago.
'Priest, 83, under house arrest for abuse'
An 83-year-old Brazilian priest detained on allegations of sexually abusing young boys has been moved from jail to house arrest.
'Brazilian priest charged with pedophilia'
Brazilian authorities charged a 74-year-old Catholic priest with pedophilia after eight children in his church choir accused him of sexual abuse.
'Priest sex video on sale in Brazil'
A video of a priest receiving oral sex in a church from a former choir boy was being sold in the streets of Brazil.
'Priest, 84, in sex act with choirboy'
An 84-year-old Brazilian priest caught on camera in a sex act with a choirboy has been arrested and put in detention.
'Belgian priest tells of 300 sexual abuse cases'
BRUSSELS: Belgian bishops have failed to punish any clergy over 300 complaints of child sexual abuse brought to their attention in the 1990s, a priest who helped many victims claims.
'Pope urges Catholic penance over priest scandal'
Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday urged Catholics to "do penance" and a top cardinal called for a mass rally by clergy to support the pontiff under fire over widespread paedophile priest scandals.
'French priest admits child abuse'
A French Catholic priest has admitted sexually assaulting a minor, and sees his arrest as a "deliverance" after years of private torment, his lawyer says.
'Malta hosts pope under priest sex abuse cloud'
Pope Benedict XVI was due to give mass Sunday in front of St Publius Church on Malta, even as the controversy over child-molesting priests followed him to the tiny Mediterranean island.
'Priest jailed over sex with altar boy'
A former Anglican priest has been jailed for a second time on child sex offences.
'More child-sex charges for NSW priest'
A NSW Catholic priest already facing multiple child sex charges has again been arrested over a further allegation of similar offences.
'Vatican accused in new US priest case'
The Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI have come under fire in the US for allegedly covering up for another predator priest and doing nothing to remove him.
'Rome waited to ban pedophile priest'
The future Pope Benedict XVI took over the abuse case of an Arizona priest, then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the...
'Vatican comments on US priest case'
The Vatican's lawyer says then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told a bishop to make sure a priest didn't abuse children while the church worked to defrock him.
'Priest suspended over sex abuse'
MUNICH: The priest at the centre of a German sex-abuse scandal that has embroiled the Pope continued working with children for more than 30 years, even though Pope Benedict was personally involved in...
'Church swamped by priest abuse claims'
Norway's Roman Catholic Church received so many tip-offs about possible paedophile priests following revelations of abuse by a bishop that its computer crashed.
'Priest preyed on deaf children, victim says'
ST FRANCIS, Wisconsin: Arthur Budzinski says the first time the priest molested him, he was 12 years old, alone and away from home at a school for the deaf.
'Irish priest defends sex abuse cover up'
A Catholic bishop in Ireland has ordered a priest to remain silent over his views that church officials should not tell police about child abusers.
Q.E.D.
"Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men’s minds, vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds, of a number of men, poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves?" Francis Bacon
"Deprive the average human being of his life-lie, and you rob him of his happiness.” Dr. Relling in Ibsen's play "The Wild Duck"
I have a confession to make. On March 4th, I watched the full 43 minutes of CBC's "The Hour" hosted by the inimitably nauseating "Strombo" (George Strombopolous) and I managed to retain my stomach contents in the process. To be frank, I was transfixed. His first two interviews were gripping. The theme was religion. Was it a positive or necessary force in our lives, or a dangerous and outmoded delusion?
Strombo's first guest was what he aptly described as "The Pope of Atheism", Richard Dawkins. As usual, Dawkins was incisive and entertaining. His message was that evolution was so wondrous that we should stop to bask in its glory and enjoy this life to the fullest rather than invest our hopes in a post-corporeal existence of our imagination. Scientific theory, he argued, is not to be equated with "theory" as understood in popular parlance. It is much more than that. It is not a speculative conclusion to be ranked with equivalent credibility to other speculations. It is built upon evidence that must pass a much more rigorous standard than the assertions of competing beliefs. The ''theory " of evolution, must be granted the same credence as the "fact" that the Holocaust happened or that Dawkins was sitting in a CBC studio in Toronto. Dawkins is right. Fundamentalist Christians, in my experience, seem to think that any scientific "theory" is something that must serve a probationary period sitting in a waiting room until it is anointed as "fact" and given a pass to enter the kingdom of Truth. This attitude reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process. All scientific theories offer themselves to challenge---they set out a means by which they can be tested and found incorrect. Religions, on the other hand, demand acceptance in the absence of proof.
Dawkins was asked if belief in evolutionary theory was enough to "get us through the night". Irrelevant. Whether a belief gets us through the night or not has no bearing upon its truth. I might dispel my worries by fervently believing that following my expiration, I will be resurrected as the taste-tester in a chocolate factory for all eternity, but such a firm conviction does not constitute proof that my expectation is a reasonable one. If 500 million people passionately believe something to be true, that does not make it true. And if just one individual believes something to be true, that alone does not make it false. The arbiter must be evidence that meets scientific requirements. Yes indeed, scientific 'theory' is a different animal than mere 'theory'.
Chris Hedges, the next guest, took issue with Dawkins' "New Atheism" however. Just as he found Christian fundamentalists dogmatic in their belief that truth cannot be found in another religious tradition or a humanist realm, Hedges finds the New Atheists dogmatic in their assertion that truth cannot be found in religion. Atheists fail to understand our spiritual needs and affect a confidence in science alone to quantity important things that cannot be quantified. Even Freud, he said, could not define "love". The chocolate heaven that I dream of may be a fantasy, but whether it is or not does not address my inherent predilection to imagine heaven. I think that Hedges is on to something here. I recall that archaeologists once found a Neanderthal grave in Israel where implements that the departed individual had found useful in his life were placed beside him upon burial. In the other words, even these "mentally" handicapped brutes---as we used to perceive them---thought of life-after-death. I don't imagine that chimpanzees or horses have such preoccupations.
Hedges speculates that sometime in our two or three million year run-up to becoming homo sapiens, we developed this spiritual dimension. It is now part of our equipment--- like it or not. Dawkins may sincerely claim that he has no need of religion to get through the night, but like the rest of us I suspect, along with his thirst for knowledge there is quest for meaning. Can his exploration of nature be explained only in terms of seeking personal "satisfaction'? How can anyone be satisfied with any accomplishment unless one harbours a belief that leaves a durable legacy? Why write a book like "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The God Delusion" if you don't believe it makes an impact of lasting importance? Why would I contribute to the "populista" movement if I didn't at some level believe it important? And is not this belief absurdly illogical? As Alan Weisman argued in "A World Without Us", the human race and its attainments will one day perish without a trace. Books and articles and podcasts included.
Hedges maintains that religion is not the problem. The problem can be found in people of all religious affiliations, including the New Atheists. The problem is not in an ideology, but in our own minds and 'hearts'. Fundamentalists of all persuasions, humanist as well, have the habit of 'binary' thinking. There is a right and a wrong. Black and white. Good and evil. They all set up a caricature of evil incarnated in an oppositional straw man. If you are a fundamentalist Christain, that straw man is a "secular humanist" or a Muslim. If you are a fundamental Muslim, your straw man is a Judeo-Christian or atheist. If you are a New Atheist, it is organized religion of all stripes and the infantile belief in a Supreme Being or beings who exercise authority over us and the natural world. Hedges finds all of these mental constructions dangerously problematic, because they make real people into abstractions. But then, we are tribal animals, and tribal war demands that we perceive our enemies in a way that firms up our resolution to defeat them. We must in some sense, "de-humanize" them. Hedges should accept that as a fixture of human nature as well, I think. We are 'hard-wired' to love those most like our selves, and to emotionally disengage from strangers who would threaten them.
I have argued for some time now, that we are neurologically flawed. We are a prototype of a better model that needs an opportunity to roll off the evolutionary assembly line. Our salvation cannot come from a moral revolution, an advance toward rationality or a funadamentally utopian political or economic arrangement. We will not find safety in some kind of socialism or steady state economy. Even if a rump of hunter-gatherers were to emerge from the rubble of overshoot, there is a very strong possibility---no, a strong probability--- that they or their descendants would tread down the same path of unsustainability that we did. Eventually we would once again take the fatal turn toward cultivation agriculture, the root of our undoing. Our flaw is, simply, an inability to acknowledge limits and grasp the long-term consequences of our behaviour. We are greedy myopics by nature, and not one of the "isms" in the marketplace offer an everlasting cure for our nature. While I too am fatally spiritual, I am not in awe of God. If He had been an engineer at General Motors, He would have been canned long ago. Nader would call us unsafe at any speed. We should have been recalled.
Dawkins error, in my judgment, is his failure to understand that "religion" is ecumenical. It consists of all delusional thinking, not just that found in a mosque, a church or a temple. Succinctly put, religion can be defined as hope without evidence. By that standard, we are all religious. Despite my 'scientific' world view, I persist in the belief that there exists a Ms. Right sculptured like a 30 year old Hollywood movie star who will materialize at the local supermarket and fail to notice my age or my station, despite nearly five decades of experience that argues for the contrary. I also believe that if I buy a lottery ticket I will be that one in 14 million people who wins the jackpot. I even believe that the Montreal Canadiens will win the Stanley Cup, even though they are currently fighting just to get in the playoffs. I have faith, despite a paucity of evidence. But I am not alone. People like Richard Dawkins still believe in Wall Street's man, Barack Obama, to lead us to the promised land. Even a $12 trillion dollar debt does not cause them doubt. Financial planners believe that we can build financial security that will survive the collapse of the oil economy. Cornucopian socialists believe that there is enough to go around if only society was efficiently and fairly administered. Greens assert that if the affluent cut their consumption, enough resources will be available for the burgeoning poor of the developing world. Growthists believe that scarcity will only encourage innovations that will abolish it. Like Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield, they believe that even in the face of collapse, 'something will turn up'. Environmentalists, for their part, still believe that we can "manage" growth, and that there exists a technological fix for mass extinctions and critical resource shortages. And authentic Chrisitians believe that no matter how many more billion mouths set up shop, God will provide for those who believe in Him.
All of us live in some state of denial. Most of the time, we actually think or behave as if we were not going to die, and that our civilization will endure. But in our sober moments, we know that all good things must come to an end . Nothing you ever accomplished will survive the passage of time. So why then are you happy? Because you are, at some level, delusional. You 'got religion.' You are a true believer. "Positive thinking", as it is called, may be the recipe for personal success, but applied collectively, it has transformed us into blind sleep-walkers racing to the precipice. Nature does not care about our morale, or whether we feel good about ourselves. It only cares if we can limit our numbers and our appetite within its ability to carry us. So far, we flunked the test. Big time.
It is my contention that unless we can reform our brain structure, we will not survive for much longer. We are just too dumb to live.
As you would expect, that thought doesn't get me through the night very well. A clear apprehension of reality is not a proven sedative.
Tim Murray
March 4/2010
Also published on countercurrents.org.
This was sent to me by the input form. - JS
Why is the leading light of christianity (the Catholic church) simply unwilling or unable to develop and deploy a single universal policy on child safety and protection?
Why is this church unable to provide the same care and attention to those harmed by clergy abuse as it does to its own clergy members when they have been harmed?
Why is this church unable to achieve these basics, particularly in those areas regarding children?
These inabilities are called failure. Universal, total and complete failure in these most basic of human responsibilities.
Is there room in a society for a religion to be permitted to preach that it is the one true church and is the only true way to eternal life and to put forth its myriad views in regards all things social, sexual and reproductive in our society whilst it is incapable of deploying what is universally understood to be the first basic step or requirement in regards ensuring the protection and safety of children?
No person respects the current response of the catholic church to the clergy abuse issue. No person. Every. Every individual with an interest or thoughts on this matter will point out some aspect where it can be or needs to be improved or an aspect where the church has failed itself, christianity, and the people of each country on our planet and their children. Every individual. There is simply and only one word which describes the completeness and totality of this - failure.
What benefits can a failed church or religion bring to our society if it is unable to implement and uphold these few basics for the safety and benefit of our current and future children?
If this church is unable to bring these few basic human things into our society should we permit it to continue to exist in its current form? Or should we permit it to exist at all?
Do you agree with the Prime Minister on both of the following statements of his in regards matters pertaining to clergy abuse?
The Prime Minister on Muslims in regards wife beating and rape.
"Under no circumstances is sexual violence permissible or acceptable in Australia - under no circumstances."
"Australia will not tolerate these sort of remarks. They don't belong in modern Australia, and he should stand up, repudiate them and apologise."
The Prime Minister on children sexually abused and raped by Catholic clergy.
"This is a matter for the church and I respect the internal judgments of the church. I don’t stand outside the church and provide them with public lectures in terms of how they should behave..."
What are your plans and policies in regards the clergy abuse issue?
What are your plans and policies in regards the appalling figures in relation to the sexual abuse of children in our society?
rgds
JohnB
The man I’ve heard jokingly called ‘Pel Pot’ has come out saying that ruthless commercial forces are against procreation.
“Cardinal George Pell, speaking after the Pope's arrival in Sydney for World Youth Day (WYD), said Western nations were producing too few children as the institutions of marriage and procreation came under attack.” July 14, 2008, AAP (Murdoch press)
Since my own research has revealed to me that ruthless commercial forces are pouring billions of dollars into boosting Australia’s population, via births and immigration, I was amazed to read this.
Further reading of the article made me think that Cardinal Pell is actually worried about the marriage rate and thinks a decline in this will bring down the birth rate. I don’t know what he uses as a norm for the birth rate; Australia’s is pretty high for a first world country.
I would like to know if Cardinal Pell actually has any evidence for his fears that ruthless commercial forces are out to slow down the birthrate. Because, if such ruthless commercial forces exist, I would like to know what on earth they see in promoting small populations when every major commercial force I know of will do anything to push up the number of consumers of land, resources, mortgages and disposable products, no matter what miseries result.
If I knew what was in it for big business to depress the birth rate and the rate of immigration, you can bet I would be grateful for the information.
In the mean time, I can only assume that the press are publishing Pell’s unmitigated nonsense because they are among the forces which want to keep on driving population growth upwards. And Pell’s strange pronouncements will help to keep the public confused about what is really happening and who the real community enemies are.
I cannot help wondering if Cardinal Pell is performing for friends in the big end of town as a way of cooperating in order to reduce coverage of his own embarrassing attitude to the prosecution of pedophiles within the church.
The Catholic Church has for a long time been in the business of land-speculation and encouraging high immigration and birth rates. It must have made plenty of powerful friends through these habits.
If Pell is truly worried about fewer marriages and consequent reduction in very large families, he should consider the stress placed on family life by the corporate forces which profit from international property speculation and ensure that families are mortgaged to the hilt. (Banks, developers etc.) Who, with a working brain, would consider marriage and a family in such a situation?
If Pell is actually worried about drug taking and promiscuity, then perhaps he might consider that those habits accompany social precarity and that social precarity is an outcome of the policies which drive continuous diasporas within this country. In fact, the corporations which push up population growth very successfully in this country also manufacture the the commercialised culture that vehicles binge-drinking, recreational drug-taking, and predatory sex.
I can barely resist telling Dr Pell that if he is so concerned he should not be encouraging celibacy among priests. I can only be thankful that he does.
Recent comments