S
- Status
M
Michael_David
Guest
And this may happen… it is already in some parts of the world… where there is plenty to go around. It’s that greed factor in the human that takes over the fair distribution of goods, or the envy that sees fit to steal it, perhaps by military force. These are ‘rationalized’ very well by the ones doing it, but do not pass the Christian muster. We can even go Pre-Christian and site the wrongs by the Big Ten. Again, the problems you site boil down to the human being.
Why do we go against what the Ten and Christianity tells us, to be selfish, greedy, envious, etc… when we will be accountable to our Maker for it? Why gather more then one needs for the day? We came into this world with nothing on, we will leave it the same way. Where is the merit? Ahh, it is in what we did, not what we had… we only gain in what we do, not in earthly possessions that rightfully belong to God (not us).
So the problems come down to people, and just who is their LORD or master. Worrying about the effects and not considering the cause only has one ‘beating around the bush’… chasing ones tail… shadow boxing. We have to ‘beat-chase-box’ the cause to effect the cure. Christ is needed here for this… do we get Him here, or does He come when it is the ‘appointed’ time? How can we do our part, and help in His coming? And be Christian!
Look in the mirror!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Excellent questions. I am convinced humanity will not achieve agricultural sustainability, population stabilization, and resource conservation without God.
StAnastasia
M
Michael_David
Guest
We are in full agreement that ‘without God’ it’s a lost cause, any of them.
So, how do we do ‘our’ share in this? Do we still do what God would want us to with His resources? Even though many others are not? Do we loose hope for humanity and go along with it? I hope not!
I believe Mother Theresa found that the more she helped the poor, the more poor there were… into infinity sorta. Did she give up? No! Like her, we can only do what we can do, and keep doing it… perhaps others will come-around and help also. And more may, and more after that, as the movement grows.
Again, it is ‘example’ that says the most to others that see…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Example and education. When children in Thailand were educated to the consequences of large families in a finite country, the birth rate came to to a replacement rate. When people are educated about the end of affordable oil, they may be led to recognize that incessant prolifgeration of the human speices is unsustainable.
StAnastasia
M
Michael_David
Guest
Here we get into the ‘quality’ vs ‘quantity’ as a natural desire.
Some of this is for the desire to give ones kids ‘better’ then we had, and hopefully they will give their kids the same (as our parents tried to do for us). I look at this like the old ball game, why does the one who made the ‘last’ out get blamed for loosing the game? Didn’t it take two others out’s before the third one could be? It’s kinda like looking back and ahead at the same time. How did our parents/leaders give us a better life? With what resources? Were they ‘real’ or ‘credit’ (as the future looked like it would never end)(now it is viewed as limited). Note the near 4 trillion deficit… it says that ‘our’ “good life” will be payed for by our kids and grandkids… and also ‘us’ as the downturn is already in effect.
We were going to go back to the '50,s. That is when the 1st out was made, with the muscle cars, things economically getting better after the war… we were in a boom. As the baby boomers got to legal age, the country catered to the ‘masses’. The war then touched on global democracy over communism… which is better for who where? Should the gov’t be by the people or by the aristocrats? Who knew better what the populous needs/wants, the elite or the people themselves? It was a nice time as the kids ruled the roost as the parents gave in and were becoming too busy going after more of that good life. Both parents went to work, double the funds makes double the take of the good. More funds meant more desire for merchandise, and the cycle spun faster and faster.
Here we are at the 2nd out as the spinning top is slowing down and starting to show a wobble. We are learning where all this ‘good life’ came from. And that it is ‘finite’. So I ask, should a new technology come on the platform to speed up the spinning top? Or should we let the top spin down and pay our dues for what we enjoyed? As is said, if you dance to the music, you will pay the piper. This is why I say to ‘look in the mirror’… how did WE OURSELVES get to where we are? On who’s backs did we ride? Didn’t we ride on the charity of our parents and fall into the air currents of the land by chasing our own ‘good times’? How come in the '30,s-'40,s education was grade school level (if that)… and in the '50,s-'60,s it was high school… and now it is college? Isn’t all this educational needs for getting a better job to get a bigger share of the ‘limited’ financial resources… and in the process, this means some others will get a smaller share? Unless the gov’t prints more money, and thereby increasing the deficit.
It’s like we are in a race, running ‘against’ our fellow humanity… instead of being one of the humanity that needs to solve these problems we see. We seem to be of a ‘competitive spirit’ with our fellow humanity… rather then a ‘cooperative spirit’… a Charitable Nature that has been replaced by greed/envy and imagined wants/needs. In the final analysis, what do WE really NEED? What do WE really WANT?
Doesn’t it boil down to people, humanity (our kids)? Rather then pay and goods? And using up all our resources while going further in debt?
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Sorry to butt in on your conversation but I just want to say that most large families I know better use the resources given them than do normal to smaller-sized families. :twocents:
B
Brendan
Guest
You sorta can. It’s modern decendant is the Chevy Aveo.
The Geo Metro was actually a Suzuki design and built at a joint GM\Suzuki plant in Ontario, Can.
Suzuki ceased North American production in 2000.
In 2002, GM teamed up with Daewoo in Korea to gain a similar model, this time based on Daewoo’s Kalos platform.
That car platform is now marketed in the US as the Chevy Aveo.
B
Brendan
Guest
We do make reasonable cars.
The point is that people define ‘reasonable’ differently than others
.A car that is reasonable for a farmer or construction worker is different than for a person with a large family, which is different from a single person.
The correct thing to do, is it not, is to create a line of vehicles and let the buying public choose which one is ‘reasonable’ for them.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t have an acquaintance with large-sized families, so I can neither confirm nor deny that.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I know quite a few. One is a family of 17. Another is a family of 10. One is a family of 8, with 2 sets of twins.
I know of more.The large families I know don’t buy many new clothes, or toys, or take expensive family vacations, unlike the small families I know, mine included. Christmases are simple. They make due with hand-me-downs many times over, they drive their vehicles until they are literally falling apart, but the large families I know are generous with their time and talent. They seem to me to be very “ecological”.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
From an ecological point of view, people who have 17 children are truly clueless:I know quite a few. One is a family of 17. Another is a family of 10. One is a family of 8, with 2 sets of twins.
…They seem to me to be very “ecological”.
17 children x 17 = 289 grandchildren
289 grandchildren x17 = 4913 great-grandchildren
4913 great-grandchildren x 17 = 83521 great-great-grandchildren
1,419,857 in the 6th generation
1,419,857 in the 7th generation
24,137,569 in the 8th generation
410,338,673 in the 9th generation
410,338,673 is one hundred million more than the current population of the United States. Considering that my family has lived in North America for thirteen generations, you can see that one family having seventeen children – even counting the possibility that not all will reproduce – is not ecologically sustainable.
StAnastasia
B
Brendan
Guest
Sure it is, by the very fact that God created those children. Children cannot come into being without a positive act of God. He must create the soul, it does not simply create itself.
Since God knows far more than we do about the world that He created, the best possible response is to allow God to create the children that He desires there to be and to accept them freely.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I said it is not ecologically sustainable. The earth could not sustain an infinite number of people. As it is we are reaching the Hubbert’s Peak of oil, natural gas, copper, and a host of other resources, without which we will not be able to sustain for an indefinite period of time more than a billion or two people.
M
Michael_David
Guest
Where are family and community values taught from birth on up? In a large family. By the time one gets to school, the large family kids already know and live what the small and single kids will have to learn. Spoiling is not an option in a large family, but is in a small or single one.
If and when another form of energy gets into use, we may be able to support 20 billion on this world of ours. Who are we to loose faith in what we see ahead, but cannot see over the next hill on the horizon…
Where is your faith? Hope? This may be a speed-bump, but does it look like the end of the line to you? There are quit a few people that do the will of their Maker… Do you think God does not have a plan? Or enough people doing His will to accomplish it…?
If and when another form of energy gets into use, we may be able to support 20 billion on this world of ours. Who are we to loose faith in what we see ahead, but cannot see over the next hill on the horizon…
Where is your faith? Hope? This may be a speed-bump, but does it look like the end of the line to you? There are quit a few people that do the will of their Maker… Do you think God does not have a plan? Or enough people doing His will to accomplish it…?
B
Brendan
Guest
And my point is that God knows more about what is ecologically sustainable that we do ( He is, after all Omniscient)
If He, knowing full well what our Earth may sustain, creates 17 children for a family, who are we to say that He is wrong?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I suppose it’s a worthy experiment to see if the Earth can support fifty billion people. They’ll either starve by thr billions, or they won’t, but what happens is not my responsibility.
StAnastasia
M
Michael_David
Guest
You are correct.
It is God’s responsibility to follow through, either by those He taps on the shoulder, or by His Angels. It is only for us to be respectful and responsible with His resources by our needs. Those He taps may find other ways of doing things that we did not think of, but He did…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Before the discovery and large-scale application of oil, ( 1859) the earth supported one bililion people on the annual (name removed by moderator)ut of sunlight. Now we are at 6.7 billion and still growing. It takes at least ten calories of petrochemical energy to create every calorie of food we consume.
We and the other developed nations have no plans in place at the moment to replace this lost energy (name removed by moderator)ut when petroleum begins to decline in a couple of years. So, continuing to promote human population growth involves us (or the next generation) in a dangerous game of “chicken” with starvation. It may be an exciting game, but it’s one of which I don’t want to have any part. That’s why we have precisely two children.
StAnastasia
J
Jennifer123
Guest
I’ll ignore the first, uncharitable, part of your post. As you said, and in all charity, you are unfamiliar with any large families.
As for not being ecologically sustainable, human beings are not a disease the world needs to cure.
I post the words of JPII on the matter of large families:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=5370&CFID=20461792&CFTOKEN=26475858
"Now the value of the testimony offered by the parents of large families lies not only in their unequivocal and forceful rejection of any deliberate compromise between the law of God and human selfishness, but also in their readiness to accept joyfully and gratefully these priceless gifts of God—their children — in whatever number it may please Him to send them.
This kind of attitude frees married couples from oppressive anxieties and remorse, and, in the opinion of outstanding doctors, creates the ideal psychological conditions for the healthy development of children born of the marriage. For, right at the beginning of these new lives, it eliminates all those worries and disturbances that can so easily leave physical or psychological scars on the mother or child. "
One can say the problems of the world are rooted in our human selfishness, exhibited by the attitude that there are too many people in the world, but yet,no one who makes that claim wishes to remove themselves first from it. There is no coincidence between the advent of the “pill” and the rise of divorce. Nor will there be between contraception, abortion,the decline of the family and the rise of social unrest.
- Status