illegal immigration?

Photo: MorgueFile

For many years now, Australia has been the destination of "boat people" - refugees or would-be immigrants from troubled lands to the north and west. Decades ago they were from Vietnam, more recently from the Middle East, Afganistan and Sri Lanka.

And for the same period, debate has raged in Australia between those who want to keep out the "illegals", and those who want to offer help to people in distress. Elections have been fought over the issue, and opinions are highly polarised.

Take these two examples:

In favour of compassion

Recently my friend Russ presented on his blog, Out on a limb, a number of reasons in favour of treating refugees like humans, based on material prepared by GetUp!. It was presented in the form of myths about asylum seekers, which were:

Myth 1 – Australia takes in more than its fair share of asylum seekers

Australia's current intake is lower than average, below UN recommendations, and per capita only 20th (out of 44 countries considered) in the world.

Myth 2 – Boat people are swamping our shores

Only 10% of asylum seekers arrive by boat, most come by air. A greater percentage of boat arrivals are found to have valid reasons. Far more people overstay their visas illegally.

Myth 3 – the Government's changes in policy have made Australia a soft target

There is no evidence that changes in Government policy, either a "tougher" stance or a more lenient one, have made any significant difference to the numbers of arrivals. Rather, conditions in the countries of origin seem to be the main factor.

Myth 4 – Refugees are a burden on our economy

Refugees are an insignificant proportion of welfare payments and may assist the economy in providing expansion to the workforce.

Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores

This is an unlikely route for terrorists. In the US, all immigrants involved in the World Trade Centre attacks arrived on visas.

Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are illegal immigrants

Seeking asylum is legal under Australian and international law to which Australia is a signatory. Whether they are allowed entry as genuine refugees is a matter for Australia to determine.

All this seems very reasonable and humane. On these facts, it would seem that Australia should be more generous to people in distress. Yet there is another side to the story.

In favour of a "stronger" policy

In a recent Sydney Morning Herald, journalist Paul Sheehan (Migration: the true story) argued that Australia is not a racist, inhumane or intolerant society:

1. The record high number of refugees admitted by the previous government did not generate significant public opposition.

2. Despite rising violence by militant Islamists around the world, the increase in Muslim numbers via legal channels in the past two decades has generated no meaningful political opposition.

3. Australia has a high number of foreign-born residents (almost 25%) and one of the world's largest per capita immigrants intakes, with the majority of arrivals being non-European.

4. It is more difficult to identify and check those people who arrive by boat than those who arrive by air and overstay their visas.

5. A recent spate of convictions for terrorist activity within Australia has largely involved people who came as immigrants.

6. The Tamil Tigers, from whom many recent arrivals originate, have received considerable support in Australia.

7. Australia can only accept a certain number of refugees without harm to economy, environment or social structure.

8. The present Government deploys a zero-sum refugee policy, so if boat arrivals are accepted, those who register to immigrate have to wait longer.

9. UN conventions on asylum seekers do not override Australian law.

10. Some would-be immigrants are demanding rights that do not exist under international law.

This too seems reasonable, if not so humane. Which story is true?

It seems likely that both sets of facts are true. In which case, the truth is very complex, and there are no easy answers. We want to help the unfortunate refugees, but we want to remain in control and be fair to others. There are arguments both ways, and the Australian Government and people will have to resolve them.

I am still a little inclined to the compassionate option. But we would all be better served if politicians on both sides spoke less like the "shock jocks" of talkback radio and gave us their considered assessments of these facts and the best possible compromise.

sam harris - man of reason?

Sam Harris is rapidly making a name for himself - author of two books, outspoken atheist, critical of religion in the US, and now the founder of The Reason Project, a "nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society".

The project is definitely about the secular approach to reason, for which read "atheism", even militant atheism. Its advisory board includes a who's who of modern western militant atheism - Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Grayling, Weinberg, Coyne, Atkins, Pinker, Venter, and a few who may be presumed to be anti-religion - Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. With a cast like that, one expects intelligent, even intellectual content, and scathing attacks on religion and superstition.

But what sort of person is Sam, the main man?

Harris has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and is current researching for a PhD in neuroscience. Wikipedia reports that he follows some practices (mainly meditation and control of "self") of Buddhism and Hinduism, but of course he does not believe the spiritual or superstitious aspects of those religions. And he has some outspoken views. Here are a few I have gleaned from the web.

The starting point for any summary is his atheism and criticism of religion, especially as practiced in the US. He argues that all beliefs should be based on reason, but religious beliefs are based on dogma and are anti-reason. He says no sensible person can believe many doctrines of christianity, and if an individual made up such beliefs we would think them "mad". He believes there is a taboo against arguing against religious belief, which is given too much respect, and that modern western civilisation's survival is threatened by religion, especially militant Islam. (All this from Wikipedia.)

All this is pretty standard militant atheist rhetoric these days, but some other aspects of Harris's views are attracting more criticism.

• In his book The End of Faith (page 52-53), he says: ”Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” He has been much criticised for this, on the grounds that he is advocating killing people not for what they have done, but simply for what they believe. He claims he has been interpreted wrongly, but also argues that there is a strong link between belief and action, suggesting he really does mean what he says.
• In a chapter on Islam in the same book he says that if Islamic nations develop long range nuclear weapons, "the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own". He says (somewhat contradictorily) this would be "an unthinkable crime" but also "it may be the only course of action available to us" and calls such a pre-emptive strike "an unconscionable act of self-defense".
• Again in The End of Faith (p 199), Harris defends the use of torture, which "in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary." He has copped a lot of criticism for this.
• Harris is part of a growing movement among militant atheists to argue that science and faith are so opposed that it is not possible for a good scientist to be a believer. Thus he has joined a chorus of criticism of President Barack Obama's appointment of Francis Collins to a senior science post, not because anyone disputes Collins' scientific credentials, but because he believes that he can't be a true scientist while holding religious beliefs that cannot be verified by science.
• In the same article, Harris suggests that it may be scientifically true that black Africans are less intelligent than other races, a view which has been labelled as both racist and scientifically in error.
• These views lead him to be opposed to freedom of conscience in religious belief: "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” This too has drawn strong criticism even from his fellow atheists (e.g. Margaret Wertheim and Michael Shermer), who say his intolerance is as damaging as the religious fanaticism he opposes (Wikipedia).

Harris's critics also query his logic and his scientific basis, and some apparently contradictory statements.

• His criticisms of religious belief as illogical and unproven seem inconsistent with his view of ethics: "the reliance on intuition, therefore, should be no more discomfiting for the ethicist than for the physicist." (EoF p. 183)
• His embracing of some aspects of eastern religions, even the suggestion that "there may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation" (EoF p. 242) has been criticised by many.
• Other critics argue that Harris doesn't apply scientific understanding in his criticisms of the harm done by religion ("scientifically baseless, psychologically uninformed, politically naïve, and counterproductive") and the motivations of suicide bombers (Harris's views are contradicted by research).

So those are some of the ideas of Sam Harris. They're perhaps less humanistic than one might expect and he seems to exhibit as much intolerance as reason. If I was an atheist, I wouldn't want Harris speaking on my behalf, but many people like him.

atheists and buses (again)

Not long ago I reported on the atheist bus advertising in the UK, with the somewhat underwhelming slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life."

Now the Sydney Morning Herald reports "Atheist message misses local bus", with similarly underwhelming messages: "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" and "Celebrate reason". Most Australians already do the first, and the second seems to contradict itself by giving no reasons. I could wholeheartedly support both of them.

But their advertising campaign has unfortunately been run over by a bus. The outdoor advertising company APN Outdoor has declined to accept their business without giving any reason. The atheists suggest freedom of speech is at stake, but it hardly seems free to force a company to take on a commercial job it chooses not to.

Perhaps the company wanted to avoid some unfortunate juxtapositions ....

houses to save the world

We all know something's got to give. In Australia, our houses are getting bigger (and uglier) while our families are getting smaller. Petrol consumption and greenhouse gases are increasing as cities sprawl and large houses require air conditioning. Our economic standard of living is rising and many in the developing world want a piece of the action.

One part of the solution is surely more environmentally friendly houses, which means smaller, better designed, energy efficient, carbon-neutral, water efficient, solar-powered buildings made of renewable materials. Or at least some of these.

The exciting thing is that it is slowly beginning to happen, even if only on an experimental level or by die-hard greenies, and the designs are attractive and interesting too. Take a look at these "green houses" - perhaps my favourite is this New Zealand house built from old shipping containers.

Photo: Jetson Green blog

Check out more photos of the shipping container house, plus a house in Japan with polycarbonate walls, a passive solar urban kit home, office space and artists' studios in old railway carriages on building rooftops in London, and this house from an old barn in Belgium.

You're probably the same as me, unlikely to make a move from where you're currently living. But surely somewhere here is the way of the future.

the best time to be alive?

When was the best time to be alive?

I've always thought I had pretty much the best of it - born at the end of World War 2, living when our western societies were becoming increasingly wealthy and jobs were easy to come by, and growing into adulthood during the 1960's when there was plenty of idealism and good music (for me, Bob Dylan represented both of those). So I missed the war and the depression, but also missed the pressure of today's mad rush to get a university place and a job while avoiding drugs and depression and shallow relationships.

But Michael Duffy, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald, reckons differently. He thinks "the luckiest generation" was the one before mine, which was born in the 1930s. This is how he figures it:

• They missed the great Depression and were too young to serve in the war.
• They would have been buying houses in the 1960s, when, in relation to household income, they cost a third what they do today.
• Society was more stable. "The divorce rate increased in the mid-'70s, a period when crime, single parenthood and chronic forms of mental and physical illness also started to boom. In the '60s only 3 per cent of working age Australians depended on welfare. That figure was to rise to about 16 per cent." Job insecurity also increased.
• He says welfare and tax policies have been shown to have most favoured this generation, especially in retirement.
• Social researcher Hugh Mackay has found that this generation has stronger values: "loyalty, saving, the work ethic, the sense of mutual obligation, and patriotism". These helped them cope less selfishly with the prosperity of the 1960s than a later generation dealt with the prosperity of the 1990s.
• "There has been a sharp increase in fear of all kinds in recent decades", and people have grown less happy. The less stable society, loss of values and decline in religion have all been suggested as reasons for this.

I'm still not sure I agree. Studies indicate that despite the negatives Duffy mentions, Australians are, on average, pretty much just as happy as we were a decade ago and half a century ago, and it is the same generally right around the world. But we are agreed that it is tougher growing up and living today than back then.

atheist says christianity is good

These days it's not uncommon to read articles in which outspoken atheists angrily denounce how christianity causes terrible trouble in the world. So it's both surprising and refreshing to read a strong atheist express the opposite conclusion.

Matthew Parris, writing in The Times (As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God), explains that he grew up in Africa, in Malawi (then known as Nyasaland), and recently had the opportunity to re-visit. Christian missionaries bring much needed aid and assistance to African communities, and although he used to disagree with the spiritual teachings, he welcomed the good works. "...only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it."

But both then and now, he noticed that, by nature, many Africans seem passive, unwilling to work for positive change. They give too much respect to leaders, even if they are unjust and brutal, and those still under the influence of tribal religions live in fear and superstition.

But conversion to christianity changes all that, he says - "it liberates". And so he argues that practical help (schools, hospitals, emergency aid, etc) is not enough, the whole African belief system "must ... be supplanted". Africa "needs God".

This leads this obviously honest atheist to a surprising conclusion: "Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete."

The article is well worth a read, and reinforces a similar conclusion by another atheist journalist, Roy Hattersley, several years ago.

schoolies, red frogs and all that

Every year, in what has become a traditional rite of passage, thousands of teens who have just completed their schooling, descend on a number of beachside locations and generally go nuts. The biggest location is "Surfers", the beachside location of Surfers Paradise south of Brisbane.

It's almost a coming of age ritual, a way of celebrating the end of the tension of completing the Higher School Certificate, and, for some, a way to party until they drop. It's called "Schoolies", or "Schoolies week". And along with the fun comes the inevitable problems - drunkenness, drugs, high-spirited behaviour gone wrong, accidents, even exploitation by sexual predators. Local communities can benefit financially, but can still be wary of the cost.

A decade ago, a Brisbane church wanted to do something to help the kids have their fun, but provide support from those at risk. And so Red Frogs was born, and it has now grown to a nationwide movement with almost 2000 volunteers, 9 tonnes of confectionery, and a big welcome from schoolies and local communities.

No doubt the system varies a little in different places, but it basically involves:

• young volunteers spending a week or two living in the big schoolies locations - in many cases, they live in the same hotels and apartments as the kids and act as "hotel chaplains";
• the volunteers give out Red Frogs (this year donated by Nestle who makes them), a confectionery popular with the kids, make pancakes, hold BBQs, clean rooms and generally make positive contact with the kids;
• the stay up late and walk kids home who might otherwise be incapable of getting there themselves, or who might be vulnerable, and are on call to help out in any way necessary;
• on occasions, they are able to intervene in more serious situations, such as illness, accident or attempted suicide.

From all reports, the Red Frogs teams are well received and well respected. Some of the schoolies find the week away isn't exactly what they wanted, and the Red Frogs team can provide welcome relief which can develop into ongoing friendships. It's a great example of christian kids putting their faith into practice by doing something that is seriously useful.

Check out the Red Frogs website, the Citipoint church Red Frogs page, and reports by national and local media.

trends (3): crime

I think most people living in major cities feel crime is more threatening than it used to be, but statistics suggest otherwise. Recent statistics for New South Wales reveal that the occurrence of most of the defined "major crime" categories are either stable or falling over the past two years. For example:

• domestic violence assault was down 8%, the first fall for more than a decade;
• assault with firearm was down 26%, and with other weapons was down 18%;
• many other forms of theft were also slightly down.

The only major crime area which has shown an increase is fraud, up by 19%, and almost half of this is due to theft of petrol when service station patrons do not pay. It seems that whenever petrol prices rise, petrol theft rises correspondingly.

Some categories of crime (e.g. drug use) are not included in the "major crime" categories, because they are victimless crimes and not reported, therefore the statistics reflect the effectiveness of law enforcement as much as criminal behaviour. Drug use is generally increasing.

trends (2): mothers

Photo: Morguefile

There is a trend for Australian women to delay motherhood. A recent report (reflecting 2006 data) indicates that the average age of mothers giving birth is now almost 30, more than a year older than a decade ago.

The percentage of births to women aged over 35 has increased from 15% to 21%. The number of first births to women over 35 rose from 8% to 14%, and those over 30 rose from 28% to 41%. The number of women under 20 giving birth halved in the last decade.

Yet despite all this, the number of births in Australia jumped more than 10% over two years, after being pretty constant for almost a decade.

Commentators, including some mentioned in the report, suggest that financial uncertainty and large mortgages are major reasons for delaying childbirth, along with improvements in medical procedures and other social and educational factors.

As a result, household demographics have changed remarkably in 30 years:

• the number of couples with dependent children fell from 48% to 37%;
• the number of couples without children has risen from 28% to 37%;
• the number of single parent families has risen from 7 to 11%.

trends (1): smoking

Photo: Morguefile

For many years now, there has been a strong anti-smoking campaign in Australia, as doubtless there has been in many other countries. It has included limitations and bans on cigarette advertising and media advertising campaigns.

And the good news is that it seems to be working. Smoking rates among men are now almost a quarter of what they were in 1945, and half those in 1980. Rates among women have also dropped (after a short term rise). And the younger age groups seem also to be getting the message, with less than half the number of young adults (18-24) smoking than 25 years ago. The incidence of deaths from lung cancer is also falling.

infidelity lures

".... everyone loves a tale of extramarital activities." So says Julia Llewellyn Smith in an article in last weekend's Sydney Morning Herald, taken from an article in the London Telegraph. She continues: "Titillated by its trappings of sex, deception and risk, we can be so entertained that we ignore the suffering of those involved."

The immediate catalyst for these comments was an affair involving chef Gordon Ramsay that has apparently become public recently. But the article went on to examine how affairs were easier these days, with discrete online access to chat rooms and escort service, and emails to make clandestine liaisons. And, experts are quoted as claiming, it is wealth that provides the trigger. Some men under pressure at work, and providing everything financially for their families, apparently feel that a "little fling" on the side is quite justified. There are even introduction agencies for people looking to have an affair with another married but romance-starved person.

Yet, the experts say, and not surprisingly, affairs are hurtful: "I cannot tell you just how much pain they cause" says a marital therapist. The pain is not just from finding out one's partner has been unfaithful, but the increasing anxiety some husbands and wives feel about any behaviour of their partner that could be seen as suspicious.

A person's ethics are shown not so much in their public behaviour, but in what they do and value in their privacy. With increasing opportunities for discreet infidelity, are we showing our true colours?

peter norman deserved better

I've never been a great fan of the Olympic Games, but I take an interest in the fortunes of Australians who compete. And so I can remember the silver medal won by Peter Norman in the 200m sprint in the 1968 games. And of course I can remember the "scandal" of him standing on the dias with two black American athletes giving what was said to be a black power salute. But I didn't know the rest of the story until now.

Photo from Wikipedia

Norman died two years ago, and the two black athletes in the picture, Tommy Smith and John Carlos, flew to Australia to be pall bearers. Why? The story has now become public with the release this year of the award-winning film "Salute", made by Norman's nephew Matt Norman.

Before the games, Norman was not expected to earn a medal, but he qualified for the final in world record time, and followed this up with a run half a second faster than his previous best to win silver. Amazingly, it is still, thirty years later, the fastest 200m time by an Australian, and would have been fast enough to win gold at many subsequent Olympics. So Norman proved to be a wonderful athlete.

But Norman proved to be more than that. The two US runners told Norman before the presentation that they were going to protest against racism in the US, and Norman offered to support them by wearing a badge for the "Olympic Project for Human Rights". Then when Carlos realised he had forgotten his black gloves, it was Norman who suggested they wear one each (thus explaining what had always puzzled me, why the two Americans raised different hands!).

Smith and Carlos were sent home, and Norman, who also expressed public criticism of the then "White Australia Policy", was disciplined. But worse followed, when Norman, still 5th fastest in the world four years later, was not even picked in the Australian team for the 1972 Olympics, and he dropped out of athletics and public view. The Australian Olympics Committee has often been accused of being hidebound and out-of-touch, and this appears to be an example.

When the 2000 Olympics were held in Sydney, Norman was the only surviving Aussie Olympian not to be invited to participate in a lap of honour. But Norman was something of a hero to black US athletes, who did not expect a white man from another country to support them, and champions such as Ed Moses and Michael Johnson welcomed Norman to their quarters.

Photo taken from Youtube.

Smith and Carlos had remained in contact with Norman over the years and appeared in the movie. And so it was that they were keen to attend his funeral and act as pall-bearers, as a last opportunity to express their respect for Norman.

Norman's stand, and the price he ultimately paid for it, were not a surprise to those who knew him. He was a committed christian with a Salvation Army background, and had a strong belief in equality and human rights.

Norman was a fine sportsman, a good bloke, he supported the underdog, clashed with the authorities and stuck to his beliefs. This should qualify him as a genuine Aussie "hero".

Read media reports about Norman in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (which includes a photo of Smith and Carlos carrying Norman's coffin) and BBC News, and a review of the film.

growing up too young

Paul Sheehan had an interesting article, titled We live in a sexual twilight zone, in last weekend's Sydney Morning Herald. He starts from considering two current films, Towelhead and Candy Girl, which have themes of sexuality in young teenage girls and young women, and Bill Henson's photos of naked pre-teen girls which caused a furore in Australia recently (Sheehan defends Henson).

He quotes sources indicating a high level of sexual interest and fantasies in young women and even young teens. For example, one Australian study shows that almost all children had seen internet porn by the age of 15, and for most of them it was their primary source of information on sex. A third of 13 year old girls have had sexual experience. (However the study was small and almost certainly not representative.)

He doesn't blame the internet, but considers "it may have created a more accurate mirror of who we collectively are as a society, in conflict with the laws and conventions we have constructed." That's a scary thought. And he concludes with this sobering idea:

"Frankly, it is our culture saturated with debt, consumerism, two-income families, one-parent households and a coarsening public domain that has done more to truncate the innocence of youth than random perverts, a reality we have barely begun to acknowledge."

teach your children well

In Australia, children generally live longer than their parents, because medical science is improving all the time and prolonging our lives. But now many people are saying (it has almost become a cliche) that the current generation of children will likely be the first not to outlive their parents.

A recent report from the government-run Australian Temperament Project outlines some good and bad news about the generation now in their twenties. The study has tracked 2,400 children from birth to their mid twenties and has recently found that 80% of them appear to be doing well - generally studying or working, and often in committed relationships.

However 40% were showing signs of problems such as depression (16%), anxiety (16%), antisocial behaviour (10%) and/or illicit substance abuse (about 15%), with some having multiple problems. Since the late teens, depression and anxiety have declined but substance abuse has increased.

About 20% drink alcohol in unhealthy amounts, and 7% are considered to be "risky" drivers. Of interest is the fact that risky drivers can be detected from mid-childhood, and risky driving is commonly associated with anti-social behaviour, substance abuse and difficulties at school.

Earlier data from the study shows that most parents and teenagers relate well, although only about half communicate well. However it seems that the teens who didn't relate well with their parents are much more likely to be at risk in late teens and mid twenties.

Obesity is a growing problem among Australia's children. Australia has been found to be the fattest country on earth, with our obesity levels now surpassing those of the US. A quarter of children are classified as "overweight" with children from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds most likely to be obese. And the rates are rising fast.

According to Prof Fiona Stanley, we're eating more and moving less, leading to weight gain and associated health problems such as type 2 diabetes, which in turn can lead to depression and (ironically) eating disorders. She advocates research to gain a better understanding of vulnerable populations, and innovative solutions that go beyond telling people to eat less - perhaps teaching parents quick and cheap alternatives to fast food, and provision of more playgrounds and open space.

It seems that the quality of parenting and the level of social disadvantage of the family are major causes of the problems being experienced by both children and young adults, but changing this may require the rest of us to accept that more taxes need to be spent in these areas to address potential problems before they appear.

those old time songs

I visited a retirement village recently, and joined many of the residents in an old fashioned sing-a-long. Not my choice of a past-time, but it was interesting to compare the songs, dating I guess from the 1930s and 1940s, with today's songs. Many of the songs reflected the uncertainties of the war years and the great depression, they were almost all fairly simple in the thoughts and emotions expressed, and they tended to be very positive, looking on the brighter side of life, promising to be faithful to a loved one far away, looking forward to better times. I wondered whether, when times were materially tough, people looked for comfort in their entertainment, but now times are materially good, we have more time for angst.

a girl's best friend?

The teen years are a time of uncertainty, a time when most people need every bit of encouragement they can get. So it is sad to read author Nikki Goldstein reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald on "the broad and insidious rise of "mean girl culture"".

Goldstein has a forum on her website where girls across Australia discuss and receive advice, and "the most pressing topic, every week, has been how to handle the bullying, bitchiness and isolation girls experience at school."

She refers to teen TV shows that seem to promote nastiness and put-downs among teen girls, and says: "Our culture has spawned a new version of womanhood that promotes a kind of sharp-tongued nastiness ...."

The SMH article offers few clues as to the reasons for this behaviour trend, but an earlier book about girls in the US, Odd Girl Out by Rachel Simmons, suggests that it is “a mean and merciless competition for relationships”, as girls seek popularity and membership in a popular clique, even if they have to destroy previous friendships to do it.

It seems to be one more evidence of a society that too often cares more for popularity and image than for friendship and lasting values.

stopping people starving because of our greed

The world fuel and food crises are bad news, but they're not insoluble. Here's a bunch of ideas on how we might do it, and what you and I can do.

The experts think the following are likely to be among the solutions:

1. Science and technology may find a way. Ideas include developing genetically modified or other higher yield crops, even growing "animal-free meat" from animal stem cells. Improved on-farm technology which optmises water application and improves other farming techniques may be possible.
2. Practical help for poor farmers, to assist them purchase better fertilisers, build water storages and improve techniques would not cost a lot and could improve yields significantly.
3. We should look carefully at funding for biofuels, and ensure that their growth is in addition to food production and not in place of it.
4. Improve how the world trade and economic systems work, by breaking trade barriers and curbing speculative investments which create uncertainty.
5. Increase food aid to poor countries, which can possibly come from excess food in some rich agricultural countries.
6. Reduce the amount of meat eaten and fuel used.

But is there anything you and I can do now? Well, yes, there is:

• We can eat less meat and conserve fuel by driving less, more carefully and in more efficient cars. There is, and will be, strong pressure from meat producers to increase the amount of meat we eat, but this should be resisted - we'll probably be healthier and others will be less hungry.
• We can donate to overseas aid organisations like Compassion, Freedom from Hunger, Global Giving, Oxfam, Project Concern, TEAR, World Vision, or one of the many organisations on OneWorld.net.
• Support Make Poverty History and Jubilee Debt Campaign, and FairTrade products which guarantee growers receive a fair wage for the products.
• We can be willing to allow our material standard of living to drop a little to support these initiatives.
• We can support, and lobby, our governments to work together worldwide to bring about the solutions.

Read more about worldwide solutions - LiveScience, USNews, Wikipedia on "Food vs Fuel" and Time.

the trend to the trivial

The theory (proposed by Maslow and believed by most psychologists) is that humans have a "hierarchy of needs". When we satisfy our basic material needs, we will then pursue "higher level" intellectual and spiritual ends.

But, says  clinical psychologist John Schumaker in a recent article, it doesn't appear to be working out that way in western society. Instead "Pulp culture is a feast of tinsel and veneer. Operating on the principle that triviality is more profitable than substance, and dedicating itself to unceasing material overkill, consumer culture has become a fine-tuned instrument for keeping people incomplete, shallow and dehumanised. ..... Today, the demand for triviality has never been higher and our tolerance for seriousness has never been lower."

He goes on to ask: "Can a highly trivialised culture, marooned between fact and fiction, dizzy with distraction and denial, elevate its values and priorities to respond effectively to the multiple planetary emergencies looming? Empty talk and token gestures aside, it doesn't appear to be happening."

He doesn't offer a lot of solutions or hope, but does suggest that the growing global problems may perhaps be our last and best chance to become more serious.

Many years ago, CS Lewis wrote: "If we are content to go back and become humble plain men obeying a tradition, well. If we are ready to climb and struggle on till we become sages ourselves, better still. But the man who will neither obey wisdom in others nor adventure for her/himself is fatal. A society where the simple many obey the few seers can live: a society where all were seers could live even more fully. But a society where the mass is still simple and the seers are no longer attended to can achieve only superficiality, baseness, ugliness, and in the end extinction. On or back we must go; to stay here is death."

reason and belief (2) - unbelievers

We've looked at how believers balance faith and reason. Are unbelievers more logical?

You'd expect they would be, because modern unbelief is generally based on science and evidence, developed via peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals. But the rise of more militant atheism in recent years seems to have changed this a little. Here are a few examples .....

the jesus myth

Unbelievers have, of course, long disbelieved that Jesus was the Son of God as Christians claim, or that he performed miracles or was resurrected. But in recent years, theories that Jesus never even existed, long rejected by historians, have been revived by some atheists. Many ingenious arguments are used, but the proponents are generally not recognised historians and the arguments are generally not made in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

So it remains true, as far as I can ascertain, that almost all peer-reviewd historians reject the idea that the stories of Jesus are a myth (see are all the stories about jesus true?), although they disagree somewhat on exactly how much of what we know about him can be historically verified. But most modern atheists, so adamant that the best science should be followed, for example, in understanding evolution, ignore the best historical analysis available. (For a long and depressing example of this, see this discussion about the Roman historian Tacitus.) Some even argue that the whole academic history establishment has somehow been "influenced" by the church to come to erroneous conclusions.

the history of christendom

The history of Christendom is littered with both good and bad. The crusades and the inquisition, religious intolerance and witch hunts, fighting over the papacy and support for warfare and genocide have all blighted the history of the church. Alongside this have been the establishment of education and hospitals, caring for women and children in the days of the Roman empire and support for the establishment of modern science, the anti-slavery movement and social welfare.

Any balanced account of Christendom must include assessment of these contrary impacts on people, and compare these to the similar impacts of other belief systems. However modern atheism often takes a one-sided view, ignoring the judgment of the best historians on the extent of both the good and the bad, and seeking at every turn to present everything in the worst possible light. Hitler's terrible record is blamed on Christianity contrary to historians and despite Hitler's own statements to the contrary. The obvious evils of the Inquisition are exaggerated and over-stated compared to what historians have determined. Unhistorical claims are made about the alleged conflict between science and religion in the past. (For another long and depressing discussion where a militant atheist argues an anti-church line from ignorance, against another atheist who knows his history, see here.)

do miracles happen?

Believers make many claims that miracles have occurred, and non-believers claim none of them are true. No-one would defend all miracle claims, but some appear to be supported by plausible evidence (e.g. when a Catholic Church medical commission investigated a large number of cases of apparent miraculous cures at Lourdes, there was sufficient evidence in only 63 cases for the commission to claim the miracles were verified).

When discussing evidence, some atheists argue that miracles are scientifically impossible, and therefore don't require investigation, a somewhat circular argument. When I presented evidence for this apparent miracle on a forum not long ago, most of the responses from atheists proposed hypotheses clearly contradicted by the evidence. When I invited them to join me in investigating further, no-one was willing. Thus many non-believers base their response more on their pre-conceived view than on evidence - which is not very different to many believers, just opposite in their conclusion.

conclusion

It would not be fair to suggest that all unbelievers think the same, any more than all believers do. There are many fair-minded non-believers who are willing to accept the evidence of history. But it seems that many of the "new atheists" are more dogmatic, somewhat in denial of their professed creed of evidence-based reason.

I would say, in my experience, that logic and illogic can be found on both sides of the belief fence, but that the illogic among non-believers seems to be increasing, and can be found in quite educated people, whereas among believers, there seems to be a trend in the other direction, among educated believers at least. But doubtless there are places where this assessment would be entirely wrong!

reason and belief (1) - believers

The relationship between faith on the one hand, and science and reason on the other, is not always easy. Here I'll look at how believers deal with the issues; in part 2 I'll examine how unbelievers go.

Religion is often seen as the enemy of science, with cases being quoted like Galileo's conclusions on astronomy being muzzled by the Catholic Church. But it also seems to be true that the Jewish, Christian and Muslim belief in a creator God and an orderly universe contributed greatly to the rise of the modern scientific method (see, for example, God's Philosophers and this discussion). Certainly it is true that, while scientific discoveries were made in many cultures, the scientific method flourished initially in Christian Europe, generally under Christian patronage.

evolutionary science

But Darwin changed all that, and Christians have historically questioned, and even opposed, the theory of evolution. The opposition has sometimes been illogical and nasty, at other times thoughtful and apparently reasonable - e.g. the more thoughtful side of Creationism, and the Intelligent Design movement. But it nevertheless seems to be based on wrong assumptions and poor science.

Much of the opposition to evolution comes from the view that if the Bible's book of Genesis is interpreted literally, it is hard to reconcile it with the findings of modern evolutionary science. But this view of Genesis is not certain. As early as the fourth century, St Augustine, recognised as one of the great thinkers in church history, warned against a literal interpretation of Genesis; CS Lewis, one of the most influential and respected Christians of the 20th century, and a very learned man on historical literature, also felt no problems in interpeting Genesis in a non-literal way.

Scientifically, it seems that the majority of Christian scientists working in related disciplines accept the broad truth of evolution - that the earth is old and that life developed from simple to complex - even if they may quibble over some details (e.g. the creation of life), and certainly believe it has been a process set up and overseen by God. For example, the majority of members of the American Scientific Affiliation (an organisation of Christian scientists) believe science points to an evolutionary process.

So it seems many Christians still see faith and science to be opposed, but there is a growing number who see faith and reason/science has being complementary to their belief. (For my conclusions, see evolution and design.)

global warming

There has been a strong scientific consensus on the reality of human-induced global warming for some time (see maybe, just maybe, we're starting to get this right and climate change continues to bite in australia). Nevertheless, many conservative people and business interests, especially in the USA, have argued the the evidence is still uncertain. Some undoubtedly fear a reduction in business profits, but for others, Christian suspicion of science, generated by evolution, seems to have spilled over into discussion of global warming.

Here it seems to be less a matter of faith vs science, and more a mistrust of science (this commentary from 2005 is typical), and a preference to believe respected Christian spokespeople, as this report shows. This indicates a poor view of science and reason by some Christians, although it seems that this unfortunate situation is changing.

reasons to believe

Some Christians mistrust human logic and believe "on faith", but most would argue there are good reasons to believe (see, for example, ibelieve). Certainly "proofs" of the existence of God, from science, human experience and history, have a long history and books about them remain popular (e.g. Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator and The Case for Christ). Whether one agrees with the case being made or not, the popularity of these and other books illustrates that reason, science and history remain important factors in the faith of many Christians.

conclusion

Christians (and other theistic believers) have an ambivalent attitude to science and reason. Some are very critical, some are very committed to logic and evidence, and an increasing number seem to be seeing with one eye of reason and one eye of faith. If one believes that science and reason are good methods to arrive at truth (albeit not necessarily the only methods, or even the best methods in some cases), then believers still have some way to go, but appear to be moving in the "right" direction.

Next: unbelievers, reason and belief.