I've been doing the Riot For Austerity in a bit of an ad hoc way for a few months now.The Riot For Austerity, in short, is a group of homesteaders trying to
"cut their emissions by 90% of what the average person in the US consumes - the approximate amount people in the rich world need to reduce by in order to avoid the worst effects of global warming." (Source: Link)
I think this is a very fine thing to do. The western lifestyle (which I will refuse to call the
American lifestyle because we Aussies are just as bad) is absolutely wasteful. We live like we are the last ones to dwell on this planet. If we keep going this way, we will be.
The Riot addresses different aspects of resource usage - gasoline, electricity, heating and cooking fuel, garbage, water, finances and food. Pretty full on. And admirable work is being done.
But nothing is said about population reduction.
Nothing.They go down to solar power credits and rain barrels, and even weighing garbage, but nothing is said about the size of your family. So according to the
"Riot" it doesn't matter if you have fifteen kids - as long as you weigh your garbage. Then if each of your 15 kids only uses 1/10th of the average US citizen, you're succeeding according to the terms of the Riot.
See the problem?
Okay, I'm getting personal here. I'm playing devil's advocate and that's not polite. And yeah - the Bible says go forth and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.
Well, I'm here to say that I think we've achieved multiplication, filling the earth and subduing it, and maybe a little common-sense and moderation in our numbers is now called for.
Now, I'm no statistician. But I do know a little bit about exponential growth and
the human population growth curve. And I know that, say, five kids a family will pretty much do it, no matter how much you try to cut back on your gasoline use.
I don't suggest for a moment that immediate and firm population control measures would solve
all the climate change and peak oil issues humanity currently faces.
But I do know that they would make huge differences.A mother's perspective
I'm a mother - my son is aged 3 and my daughter is aged 9 months. And, to be perfectly honest, I would
love to have more children. My kids are so amazing and so special that I'd love to fill a huge house full of them,
Patridge family-style.
At the very least I'd like another baby. I think children give us joy and wisdom beyond anything we could ask or expect. I'm a healthy Mum, and there's no reason why my husband and I shouldn't go on to have another three or four kids. We can afford to, the Government wants us to, so why not?
We won't. We are making a firm and absolute decision that our family stops with two, which is technically below stable population numbers. We even actually debated having a second, and it was only after a lot of consideration that we went on to have my daughter. Despite calls from the Australian government to have 'one for the mother, one for the father, and one for Australia', we're stopping with a pigeon pair. We were lucky enough to get a boy and a girl, but had we had two of the same gender, we would
still have stopped at two.
Avoiding the Big Issue
When we humans take serious measures in our behaviours to tackle climate change and peak oil, we are doing commendable work. But if we ignore various big issues because they are inconvenient to us, we do not do ourselves justice.
The issue of population control is difficult. I am not advocating infanticide, murder of people, or enforced sterilisation. But I do believe that the current status of various world governments, various churches and religions (including the Catholic Church and many orthodox groups), and many Green groups and world charities in ignoring this issue is irresponsible.
We need to reduce our numbers, in some parts of the world more quickly than others. A simple way to check whether a country is overpopulated is to check the average
ecological footprint of a citizen in that country, then calculate the amount of arable land available in that country to see whether the country is overpopulated.
Of course, the statistics given on how much land is required to feed a human being are based on land fertilised and farmed with readily accessible petrochemicals and oil-based transportation systems. So those figures themselves may be dubious.
I think it is probably safe to say that the entire planet is probably currently overpopulated with humans, and that at the absolute least a marginal reduction of human numbers is required. The planet certainly has no need of or ability to carry greater human numbers than are already present.
I can see why this issue is avoided. Reproduction is seen as a human right, and let no-one interfere with that right! The issue is uncomfortable, sticky, is fraught with religious issues and awkwardness, and it's just plain uncomfortable.
It's like that other big nasty - the fact that
the livestock industry causes more greenhouse gases than the world's entire transport systems. People like to have lots of kids, they like to eat lots of animals, and we like to look the other way on both these issues and change a few lightglobes instead because that's an easier change to make.
Which brings me to...
When I was at school back in the 1980s
(yes, I'm that old!), I used to do the
World Vision 40 hour famines. I thought I made a difference, saving all those poor children from starvation. I raised hundreds of dollars, as did my friends.
We'd have been better off distributing condoms. Because many of those kids lived long enough to have many more starving children of their own, and the AIDS epidemic has also spread like wildfire through Africa. Now the suffering is worse than ever. All our goodwill did was make the suffering last longer.
Of course, World Vision is a
Christian organisation, so they're never going to consider family planning methods - oh no! Better that people reproduce unheeded and raise more starving people - that's the ethical thing to do, apparently.
I can't help but think that there was no point to my charity back in the 1980s. Because all it did was make me feel good, and help bring a new generation of poor children forth into the world to suffer needlessly. If we'd provided condoms as well as farming setups, the parents of those children would now be coping much better, and wouldn't be dealing with AIDS and dying children.
As a mother, I cannot imagine any nightmare worse than watching my child die and not being able to do anything about it. I feel for those mothers now, but as no charity that I know will distribute family planning methods along with sustainable assistance, I cannot in all good faith donate to them, and I feel helpless as I watch yet more children suffer needlessly, as their poor mothers look on in anguish.
If this is the ethical way according to World Vision and their cronies, it stinks.Why reduce our numbers? We're fine, right?
There's only one Earth, and at the rate we're destroying the ecosystem, it looks like we're far beyond carrying capacity already. We need to reduce. We need to think long-term, reduce our needs and our numbers, and set to work healing this beautiful earth of ours instead of tearing it apart.
Hate mail?
I'm sure I'm going to get hate mail over this post. I'll get the whole "Why did you have
two children then?" question. I'll get the whole "How dare you! Butt out of my life, thank you very much! I have seven children and we're absolutely sustainable!" And I'll get the "How dare you question the Bible/the Church/Synagogue/whatever?!"
I question
because someone has to. If I, as a human being, don't question humanity's actions, then who on earth will?
As I said, I am a mother. I am also a citizen on this most beautiful world. I want our children to live on a peaceful, sustainable planet, with enough food and good soil for everyone. That means we need to acknowledge our limits, and truly begin to appreciate the Garden of Eden that we have been given.