Governments, businesses and a number of religious people (which usually includes governments and businesses) are making hard decisions about how to solve the aging population crisis. With fertility rates at or near an all time low for a number of developed nations, there seems to be an urge to kickstart the current economic system.
Among some of the strategies being implemented by governments include convincing people there is no such thing as an overpopulation problem anywhere in the world. "The problem lies with the age of the population" as people are told. Because we are aging and no longer replacing ourselves, it is a myth to believe there is a population explosion. In that way, it is hoped people will believe the planet can do with a few more babies or so we are told. It is either that, or governments will have to seriously consider establishing the sex olympics to get people to see the value of sex and making babies. We have the normal Olympics and the para-Olympics. So why not have the Sex Olympics as well?
Or why not a "f*ckfest"?
And given the fascination governments have with small businesses in maintaining the current economic system, why not give incentives for someone to set up a business called the "Willie Wanker and the Sperm Factory" for women to get pregnant with?
Of course some politicians won't be quite so confronting and direct like this. They will be subtle in how they wish to entice people to make babies. A classic example of this is the statement made by Australian Federal Treasurer Mr Peter Costello in May 2004:
'You should have one for the father, one for the mother and one for the country...if you want to fix the ageing demographic, that's what you do.' (Totaro, Paola. Where have all the babies gone?: The Sydney Morning Herald. 9-10 April 2005, p.27.)
Likewise, governments will provide strong economic incentives to do your bit of populating the nation.
For example, Mr Costello claims you will receive $3,000 for each baby you make after July 2004. Of course, what Mr Costello doesn't tell you is that to benefit from these thousands of dollars free from the government, you must time the birth within a few days of the end or beginning of the fiscal year. Otherwise you will pay more tax for the income you earn and the baby bonus amount if the baby pops out sometime in the middle of the financial year (eg. around December or January). Cunning bastards!
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
27 April 2005
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government through Finance Minister Mr Peter Costello and Health Minister Mr Tony Abbott says it will only support this "making babies" policy if it doesn't cost the government (ie. taxpayers) too much money. If it costs too much, everyone else will have to pay for the cost because "nothing in life is completely free, nor should it be..." as Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard has declared.
So what does this make the two residences in Sydney and Canberra for the Prime Minister to live in? If this ain't free, then why are taxpayers tolerating paying for two residences instead of one (ie. he should be living in Canberra while he remains Prime Minister)?
The Australian Federal Government is touting Australians should root for their country at other people's expense. Yet the Government will cut back funding to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments for women. Now the policy is women over 42 years of age will receive Medicare payments to cover a lifetime maximum of 3 treatments, and no more than 3 treatments per year for women younger than 42. If women want more, they should pay. The argument being that IVF treatments are "non-essential" or not life-threatening (unless the woman is in the middle of giving birth of course). In other words, the Government has realised making babies through IVF treatments are getting too expensive.
The Government further backs this up by saying the chances of success for women having a baby over 42 is considered so small it is not worth spending the money. This view is based on recent statistics showing only 1.5 per cent conceive for women over 42 years of age. Everyone else with infertility problems below this age have a 20 (first attempt) to 35 (after three attempts) per cent chance of success.
Try telling this to Defence Minister Robert Hill and his close mate Mr Howard with their decision to send troops to Iraq. The chances of success in turning Iraq into a democracy are very small indeed yet Mr Howard is prepared to spend billions upon billions of dollars fighting the war with the US. Then he has the nerve to say to everyone else not likely to make a profit to the Government that nothing in life is free.
The unspoken policy from the Government today is to root like rabbits the old fashion way (ie. it costs nothing to the Government). But do make sure to bring your wallets later in case the Government can't afford childcare (since parents are required by the Government to work) and other social services (eg. health since the government does not curb businesses making unhealthy foods for the sake of a health economy).
A "cabinet-in-confidence" letter leaked to The Sydney Morning Herald's Louise Dodson suggests tension between the Liberal Communications Minister Helen Coonan and Prime Minister John Howard was high when she described infertility as "a health condition for which treatment is available, not a lifestyle choice which society chooses to indulge" (Metherell, Mark. Fertile debate: The Sydney Morning Herald. 30 April-1May 2005, p.33.).
Coonan says IVF success rates have improved substantially. To curtail funding to IVF treatments now would contradict the government's own pro-baby policy of June 2004.
Mr Howard sticks to Mr Abbott's plan to cut back funding to IVF treatments.
A former secretary of the Health Department under Labor, Mr Stephen Duckett, says if saving money through the Medicare system was the issue for the Government, then why target IVF treatments as the only area worthy of the cut backs in the eyes of Mr Abbott when there are other cost savings to be made in Medicare such as unnecessary numbers of chest X-rays conducted as routine procedure.
IVF doctors have speculated Mr Abbott's strong christian up-bringing has had an influence. Fundamentalist christians do oppose fertilisation taking place outside of the body. However, Catholic Health Australia's Francis Sullivan rejects the idea saying religion played no role in this decision. We are none the wiser as to the view on this from Mr Abbott.
But if religion was a dominant part of the decision, then where's the christian values and beliefs showing that war should not be seen as the solution to world problems (eg. terrorism, unemployment etc)? Killing has never been the hallmark of christianity. The religion's own charismatic leader Jesus Christ has made it abundantly clear in his teachings that the killing of people to solve problems is not the solution.
And to prove his understanding of the concept of love in the face of such cruetly in the hands of the Roman terrorists, he showed it to his people by sacrificing himself on the cross.
Does Mr Abbott and Mr Howard have the same understanding of the concept of love by being prepared to die in the hands of modern terrorists? Probably not. They are too busy maintaining power and building up their wealth and superannuation funds. Anyone who interferes with this selfish activity will be treated accordingly by the military and law enforcement agencies.
And if religion was not the reason, then why was IVF treatments singled out as the only specific medical practice within the Medicare system requiring substantial funding cutbacks?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
5 May 2005
The Australian Federal (Howard) Government officially backs down on its policy to limit the number of IVF treatments. It comes as former Education Minister Mr Brendan Nelson and other Liberal ministers expressed a strong sense of disapproval of the policy. Now the Government has given the IVF problem to a group of health professionals to decide on a more suitable solution.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
18 May 2005
After providing an incentive to Australian women to make babies through a A$3,000 baby bonus for each baby born after 1 July 2004, the Australian Federal (Howard) Government is indirectly asking for the money back by asking all mothers to return to work, pay extra taxes, and pay for child care. Either that, or the politicians want to turn babies into government property. Sounds like it is time for Australian mothers to follow the lead of British women as the following graffitti in Oxford reveals:
Insert baby for refund.
(On contraceptive vending machine, Oxford)
The Australian version should be:
Insert baby for refund.
(On the front doors of the New Parliament House in Canberra)
Of course, we won't ask how the environment is fairing in this bizarre social experiment!
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
28 May 2005
Just as single mums were starting to come around to the idea of having to return to work (after making babies), the Australian Federal (Howard) Government wants to introduce unfair dismissal laws as part of its major industrial relations reforms after 1 July 2005 when it has total control of the Senate. This means employers will have the upper hand in sacking any employee without giving a reason. So if you're pregnant and want to take maternity leave or simply have kids to support, the employer can choose the right moment to sack you when you return to work without explanation. As Emma Ashton of Marrickville in NSW said:
'Do the industrial reforms override anti-discrimination laws? Can a business of fewer than 100 employees now dismiss an eight-months' pregnant woman for no reason? Can they dismiss her as she comes back from maternity leave? If this is the case, all the gains women have made in the workplace in the past 20 years are gone. Costello's "baby boom" may come to a grinding halt.' (The Sydney Morning Herald: Work changes an unfair dismissal of workers' rights (Opinion and Letters). 28-29 May 2005, p.38.)
More of a reason to have a baby refund. You keep the A$3,000 for the time and effort of carrying the baby inside of you and giving birth and later you give the baby to the government to pay for its upbringing. Based on pure economics, this makes perfect sense.
It is no wonder some single mothers are contemplating the possibility of trapping men in brief sexual liaisons and later claim to the Federal Government that the men are the fathers of the women's children in the hope of getting men to pay substantial child support.
And then some men commit suicide because the current Family Law forces men (single or otherwise) to pay more for child support (based on an 80/20 system where men pay 80 per cent of the support) irrespective of whether the mothers find another partner to financially support them or the mothers ask more money claiming this is the actual cost of supporting a child until the men find it too expensive to feed themselves. Or else some men have to be cunning by disappearing mysteriously and work temporarily interstate and keep changing work and home locations until it becomes virtually impossible for the Government or the mothers to find and force the men to pay child support. Or the alternative is to become unemployed and thus avoid the payments altogether.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
20 May 2005
Single mothers are the main target of the Australian Government's new policy to force people into work. Ironically, new mothers married to an income-producing male partner are exempt from this policy. Is this an economic reason or a religious reason? If it is an economic reason and the growing percentage of aging people is considered a major problem, you would think every person capable of entering the workforce would be forced into a job. Not so for mothers having a male partner. This leaves us with only one explanation: a religious one. The Government is rewarding mothers in the traditional Christian family unit consisting of a married heterosexual couple with children. Anyone else who is divorced, living in de facto relationships, gay couple, or people who just want to be single with children are being discriminated in the family tax benefits.
Are we to assume this is the Christian concept of love where we must selectively choose who should be given love and the rest can work their butts off or else follow the Christian approach? For whom? The Government? The US President? The fundamentalist Christian's own understanding of God? Rubbish!
This is not the true religion of God we should all be promoting. We are no where near it.
The true religion of God requires us to realise love is for all people. We don't use our L-brain to decide where love should go and that's it. The true religion requires us to use our R-brain as well. Our L-brain is there to make sure there aren't people missing out on the love and we acknowledge the differences because those differences mean creativity and a potentially new way of doing things and in seeing the world. The R-brain merely helps us to view the real world as it should where everyone is equal in the eyes of God.
In the end, we must balance our thinking. Not this nonsense of purely rational "L-brain" thinking in which we dictate who gets what in this world and the rest can go to hell by working to support the traditional fundamental L-brain Christian view of the world.
The politicians really have a lot to learn. They take things in the Bible too literally without going beneath the surface of the ocean to see the deeper meaning of the concept of love.
It is no wonder the world is the way it is. One cannot possibly see how a planet such as this could be bringing God to us and we to God by the way we treat our environment badly and those people who don't fit precisely into the ideal Christian views without acknowledging how their own concept of love is forcing people to become who they are today and unfortunately it is not all good.
There is no way God can be on the side of the Australian Government in these matters.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
18 June 2005
The Federal (Howard) Government is trying to come up with a formula for calculating the actual costs of raising a child and being more fairer in how much fathers should pay for child support. But will any parent agree to exactly how much a child costs according to the formula?
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
22 July 2005
The Federal (Howard) Government may now be shifting its focus to the increasing numbers of men being forced into casual and part-time jobs described by Sue Richardson, professor of economics at Flinders University, as the victims of a new economy. She believes this "semi-employment" or Clayton approach to working for employers is causing significant problems when it comes to improving Australia's historically low fertility rate, increasing marriage rates and the rise in sole-parent families.
Among the statistical figures touted by Ms Richardson (believed to be obtained from the National Institute for Labour Studies) is how of the 1.5 million extra jobs created between 1994 and 2004, only 12 per cent of those were permanent full-time jobs taken by men. A further 24 per cent were full-time, but their duration ensured it was of a contract, labour hire or casual basis and therefore men lost out in conditions such as annual leave or sick leave and not having to work overtime regularly.
As Professor Richardson said in a speech to the Australian Social Policy Conference at the University of NSW on 22 July 2005:
'We need to change course to avoid a lot of despair and misery. The labour market is making it extremely difficult for men and women to choose to become parents.' (Horin, Adele. Men out of work — why families are falling apart: The Sydney Morning Herald. 23-24 July 2005, pp.1 & 4 (pp.1 & 4))
She described the changes to the economy as a "disaster". She further adds:
'...it's not a successful labour market. It's bad for men, and it's bad for children. You can't keep a family on a part-time job.
'The labour market has been extremely hostile to men, particularly men who don't have any post-school education.
'Men who can't get a full-time or secure job are not attractive marriage prospects.' (Horin, Adele. Men out of work — why families are falling apart: The Sydney Morning Herald. 23-24 July 2005, p.4 (pp.1 & 4))
On the whole, Professor Richardson has viewed the economy as hostile to family life. You either have to work long hours and thus not enough time to create and nurture a family, or too few hours and thus not enough money to support a new family. As Richardson said:
'You can't be a good parent either in the low-hour or long-hour jobs — you've either got not enough money or not enough time.' (Horin, Adele. Men out of work — why families are falling apart: The Sydney Morning Herald. 23-24 July 2005, p.4 (pp.1 & 4))
Women, on the other hand, are fairing a little better in the statistics with 60 per cent of new jobs taken up by women of which 22 per cent of those are full-time permanent jobs.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
24 July 2005
Some current affairs programs are suggesting a majority of people who marry or have sexual relationships are likely to be someone you know at work (if you have a job). It must show the long hours people are faced with at work which eventually forces people at work to turn to each other for emotional support and possibly to have children.
## SPECIAL UPDATE ##
12 January 2006
The new Australian IR reforms to be enacted on 1 July 2006 will encourage unskilled single mothers to stay on family welfare payments because it is easier than going to work and realising they have to pay nearly double for rent and the high costs of child care.
NOTE: Some people will try to balance this view by adopting children from third-world nations as a possible solution to the aging population. While other people argue we should increase immigration of young skilled people in third-world nations to allow for a greater percentage of young people to support the economic systems of developed nations. As these people believe, at least immigration and adoption will go some way towards balancing the overpopulation problems in third-world nations and the perceived under-population levels in developed nations. But this only works if all the current young people in developed nations are properly trained and given employment. Otherwise, as we are seeing in some European countries, young unemployed people are likely to join R-wing extreme groups for a solution to their social problems and all they can see are immigrants looking like they are taking all the jobs.
Then we have the religious types such as the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute eagerly quoting a UN report prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in 2001 that:
'Over the period 1961-1998, world per capita food available for direct human consumption increased by 24 per cent, and there is enough being produced for everyone on the planet to be adequately nourished.
'From 1900 to 2000, world population grew from 1.6 billion persons to 6.1 billion. However, while world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic product increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world to not only sustain a four-fold population increase, but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living.' (http://www.cqnet.com.au/~user/dancasey/Population_control.html)
The essential argument expressed in this quote is that people can populate because there is adequate food for everyone.
The truth is, food is not being distributed properly to all people in every nation. Profit and power lies at the heart of world leaders in developed nations to distribute food only to those who can afford it and/or willing to give foreign businesses access to local markets. If this wasn't true and food is distributed to everyone and everyone had a paid job in the new economic world order for supporting all nations, would there be an aging problem in developed nations? Probably not.
Then the religious types argue we should have more babies because they are God's gift to the world. But as one anonymous person said:
'People have one or two children not because they dislike them, but because they are extremely expensive. You can give a better life to two or three than you can to five or six (most of us anyway).' (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b41e2ee55ac.htm)
Then the religious types will argue it is because those people who think having children is expensive is because they want to purchase new cars, have vacations, take cigarettes, go to restaurants, and live in the centre of the city and pay high mortgages and so on. If people live simply, God will always provide everything needed to support any number of children in this world. This argument would seem justified when they read the following quote from a person living in an expensive city:
'It's no surprise the birth rate is falling. Interest rate increases, health insurance increases, reduced services for public health, public education and a deregulated jobs market making it harder for Australians to get permanent work.
'As a 28-year-old Sydneysider, who has been married for four years, employed consistently during university and in full-time employment since graduation, I should know. With increasing costs and pressures to make ends meet, raising a family is way down on my list of priorities.' (Collin, Philippa. Opinion & Letters: The Sydney Morning Herald. 5-6 March 2005, p.36.)
However this religious view assumes we are all in search of buying new cars and the rest which is not the case for most people. It also assumes we all fully recycle and grow our products which is not the case given the state of our environment today through climate change and the impact of businesses in the current economic system. Add to this the job insecurity problem expected to increase following the workplace relations reforms taking place by some governments, and having the money to support children is looking very thin indeed.
And what about those people who aren't living in the cities and yet still find the task of raising children a financial strain? How does the religious view explain this situation?
Perhaps religious people will argue more education is the key. But education takes money if it involves working for the economy. Otherwise, the economy must collapse in favour of an education to help grow and recycle food.
But if we are to maintain the economy in its present form — warts and all — then as one woman remarked, "I hereby pray that God take over the provisioning of this case so that I can keep a bit more of my earnings."
Yet the arguments continue. As another religious person would say:
'Your being silly. Do you seriously think this women is praying to God to help her get on her feet. Does it seem she is trying at all to get on her feet? There is a world of difference between saying someone who has no husband, no job, no morality, and is making no effort to find any of the above should not have kids, and saying a couple working hard to make ends meet canŐt afford kids because they want that second new car. If this women followed Christian morality at all, which is kind of presumed if you are talking about welcoming kids into your home as God's gift, she wouldn't be a welfare case.'
And another going after the religious types said: "If you made out well with 4, why didn't you have 6 or 7??? Did finances get in the way?"
Then another religious person writes, "*BETTER* life? Bullhooey. You can give them more things -- more expensive clothing, more trips on airplanes, newer cars (or cars, period) when they turn 16, nicer toys. But the quality of life is COMPLETELY independent of how many kids are in a family."
We must interpret this as meaning that large families in third-world nations can have a high quality of life by letting God provide them with everything so it doesn't matter how many children you have. The more children the better.
What do we mean by letting God provide everything? If this means learning the knowledge for growing and recycling the essential products the families need to survive on any piece of land available to them (so long as they are not being ravaged by civil war or disease, or profit-motivated businesses trying to take the land away), then how is it that a number of religious people have jobs supporting the current economic system in developed nations and yet the environment is allowed to be degraded?
Are these religious people (many of them acting as so-called leaders in politics and business) making the assumption God is providing them with everything through the current economic system? Are they thinking the economic system in its present form is doing enough to recycle its products and look after the environment to "let God provide everyone with everything"?
If this is true, then how is it that there are a growing number of scientists and environmentalists showing concern about the environment? Where are the religious types in bringing "God's work" to this planet by ensuring everyone has what they need through the process of full and proper recycling and learning to live within one's means? Or are they keeping to themselves (and possibly quietly getting richer and politically more powerful) at the expense of others because they think other people are not "God's children" and therefore don't deserve God's help because of their sins?
As Jesus once said to his people, "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone."
Given how many religious people aren't looking after the environment properly, somehow we feel there are religious people in the world (mainly in positions of power) who are not learning very well from their own Bible studies.
Perhaps religious people need a good kick up the backside with a quote just to get things moving along in the right direction. As part of an address in a meeting in London of 30 environment and energy ministers from 20 of the world's biggest polluters, Gordon Brown said in March 2005:
'If our economies are to flourish, if global poverty is to be banished, and the well-being of the world's people enhanced...we must make sure we take care of the natural environment and resources on which our economic activity depends.' (The Canberra Times: Fears EU shrivelling as fertility rate drops. 19 March 2005, p.15.)
Then maybe God's work will reveal itself ever more distinctly to the global community by looking after the environment.
