|
1
Who is being exposed?
This is the Steven Anderson born in Sacramento, California, United States
of America, on 24 July 1981 on the Gregorian Christian calendar; the person
who leads the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, a Phoenix suburb, in
the neighboring state of Arizona.
"If the Bible condones slavery," this pastor says, "then I condone slavery,
because the Bible is always right about every subject."
(Since literalism without cherry-picking does not exist, it is most telling
what those who embrace it pick up but too greedily and what they hush up
but too surreptitiously.)
According to Steven Anderson you should trust the (childless) Lord of the
Bible with the size of your family, not apply any form of family planning,
and let God (the one of the Bible) decide.
In the same vein it is claimed that so-called 'normal' families do not
limit their number of children.
2
Why is this person an 'explodist'?
At 37 years of age Steven Anderson is already the father of ten biological
children, while the eleventh is expected to be born in September 2019 on
the Gregorian Christian calendar.
For a sustainable population equilibrium (SPE) two to three biological
children at the end of one's life are physically needed and morally
justified.
If we take three as the maximum, this means that the person in question is
10-3=7 times co-responsible for the eventually total destruction of
human-scale nature as the result of a continuing global explosion of
the human population.
In other words, this person is now already a heavy contributor to human
population 'explodism'.
3
Is overpopulation the only cause?
Clearly, both human overconsumption (among which the wrong kinds of
consumption) and human overpopulation are the cause of the degradation
of the natural environment, of which climate change is only one aspect.
The former is just not the topic at this place, because it has been
receiving loads of attention worldwide, whereas the latter is far too often
—to put it mildly— a taboo subject,
the elephant in the room.
In terms of ecological footprints the size of your one footprint
during your individual life tells you what, if anything, you contribute to
overconsumption, while the number of footprints you create and
leave behind tells you what, if anything, you contribute to
overpopulation.
In the end, size and number matter together.
4
What is being assumed?
Obviously, when we speak of what number of biological children is needed
and justified, we are talking about an average number for each adult
at the time of her or his death.
The
powers of two demonstrate
that this number is 2+ for (your own) children, 4+ for (your parents')
grandchildren, 8+ for (your grandparents')
great-grandchildren and 16+ for (your great-grandparents')
great-great-grandchildren.
Hence, Steven Anderson could only justifiably have his number of ten or
almost eleven children, if he himself has no sib (sister or brother) or
only one or more sibs who will die or died without offspring, and if his
parents have no sib or only one or more sibs who will die or died without
offspring, and if his grandparents have no sib or only one or more
sibs who (will die or) died without offspring, and if his
great-grandparents had no sib or only one or more sibs who died
without offspring.
If all these things turned out to be true in his case, our assumption about
Steven Anderson's co-responsibility for the
destruction of nature on Earth would, indeed, be wrong.
5
Just imagine
At this moment the least destructive scenario would be that Steven Anderson
ends up with eleven children.
But will it stop there?
Just imagine what will happen if all these eleven children take and get
eleven biological children in turn!
It would leave the man in question with 121 (one hundred and twenty-one)
grandchildren, while the natural number is only around four or five in the
end.
Steven himself may relish it, and be proud of it —it will be a quiver
of arrows ready to spread his own creed, in practice more
—
but think of the horrendous effects such demographically inspired blatantly
egoistic behavior will have on our natural and cultural environments!
6
Is naming and shaming fun?
No, not at all: it is not a pleasure to expose individuals, families,
communities and countries when something of such tremendous importance as
the future of nature or of human society is at stake, because it is likely
to offend or hurt others; others who may not be or have been aware of what
they were doing.
However,
'exposing the explodists' is a necessary evil,
one of the badly needed more concrete ways of conscientizing people.
Global human overpopulation will never be curtailed by abstract
scientific studies, followed or not followed by pieces of advice and
requests which require no commitment whatsoever.
7
Why this explodist in particular?
Steven Anderson's denominational ideology does not
only lack any notion of (natural) equilibrium, it is also an exclusivist
doctrine that caters religiously to
.
Now, people may not only love whomever or whatever they want, they may
equally hate whomever or whatever they want, so long as the freedom they
take to express their love or hatred does not erode away the very rock on
which that freedom itself is based, for example, by seriously trying to
promote murder and slavery.
Let us be clear: the foundation of the freedom of speech and the freedom
of and from religion is no other than the mutual respect for
persons as persons, for fellow-citizens as fellow-citizens, inclusive of
the common property of our natural resources and the individual property
of our bodies.
It is the immoral, if not criminal, lack of respect which Steven Anderson
has shown, and is still showing, in this regard which makes exposing this
(what is supposed to be a) fellow human being more palatable a task.
Albeit only as a ten-child explodist on this page.
M. Vincent van Mechelen, 74.MNW
|
