Children ‘Bad for Planet’
Posted on June 19, 2008
Filed Under News Flash |
Believe it or not, that’s an actual newspaper headline. The article, which ran last year but which I only now just caught wind of, cites the work of an organization called Optimum Population Trust (OPT). John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT, believes couples should weigh the impact of children 
on the planet in their family planning. Which is why this green think tank is suggesting that you and I cut down on our carbon dioxide (CO2) output by having smaller families. For instance, instead of giving birth to four children, couples should have three.
Mr. Guillebaud states, “The greatest thing anyone . . . could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.” While the reporter didn’t indicate what was meant by “the future of the planet,” there are some who believe that humans and human activity present a threat to the survival of Earth as we know it. OPT appears to fall into this camp.
Elsewhere in the article, Mr. Guillebaud goes a step further arguing that two children is the ideal number of kids per couple. To some, this position might sound reasonable, logical, and even praiseworthy. Who isn’t for better conservation these days? We’re driving smaller cars. We’re recycling more effectively. The idea of having fewer babies to minimize CO2 emissions seems like a good thing on the surface. Upon closer inspection, however, there are a number of problems with this perspective. Let me touch on four:
1) Questioning the science. In 2006, former Vice President Al Gore took his concerns about global warming to the silver screen with his film, An Inconvenient Truth. On the other hand, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, believes global warming is “a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam.” Furthermore, a consensus among scientists regarding the relationship of CO2 to global warming has yet to be reached.
2) The slippery slope. If we start placing a limit on the number of children a family can have, is it really that much of a stretch to start questioning the CO2-related emissions by those who are handicapped? How about the elderly? Using OPT’s rational (that saving the planet trumps human life) couldn’t a case be made that once a person reaches a certain age—say 80 years old—they should volunteer to die . . . for the sake of the planet? Will we see headlines such as: Elderly Bad For The Planet? (Sounds a lot like the classic movie Soylant Green.)
3) God’s mandate. In Genesis 1:28 when God charged Adam and Eve as the representatives of mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the earth,” He didn’t place a cap on the figure. God could have said, “Once humanity reaches eight billion people, better slow things down.”
4) Global Population Control movement. There’s an inherent problem if a government limits the number of children a couple can have. This kind of policy invites sex-selection abortion or infanticide while discriminating against baby girls. Why? Girls are considered not as “valuable” as baby boys. If, for example, a family is permitted just one or two children, if they have a baby girl, often times she’ll be abandoned so that the couple can try again for a coveted boy.
Where is this headed? My prediction is that in ten years, maybe sooner, being pro-life will be viewed as being anti-planet. That point of view is closer than you may think. The foundation for this bias is being laid today. What’s more, that planet-first philosophy contains very real life and death implications for the unborn, the elderly, the handicapped, and anyone else who places an unacceptable drain on the planet. It’s a matter of time. That is, unless thinking people:
1) Remember that children are a gift from God, all human life is sacred—regardless of your age or ability to “contribute” to society, and that God put mankind in charge of the planet, not the other way around;
2) Refuse to be manipulated if and when soft science is used to prop up an environmental activist, special interest, or population control agenda;
3) Recognize that we do need to be good stewards of our resources and find winsome ways to articulate the celebration of life, while pursuing appropriate measures to care for the planet we share.
Are children bad for the planet? Not in my book. Not by a long shot.
What do you think?
Comments
6 Responses to “Children ‘Bad for Planet’”
Leave a Reply
Comments are moderated and will not appear on jimdalyblog.com until they've been approved. While we are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing most comments, we may withhold one from time to time if we deem it offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious.
Comments on Jim Daly’s blog may not refer specifically to any current electoral candidate, or any measure on a current ballot – at any level of local, state, or federal government. Focus on the Family is a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity, and therefore cannot take a position on specific votes. Nor can we display any such statements on our Web sites. Likewise, we cannot discuss here the personal viewpoints of people like Dr. Dobson or Jim Daly on political candidates or ballot measures. Any posts to this forum which violate these rules will be removed. There is an alternative venue for this type of discussion. Some activities of this nature are undertaken by Focus on the Family Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, and its media outlet, Citizenlink. Citizenlink maintains an Election Forum of its own, where political discussions are allowed and welcomed so long as they comply with the posted guidelines.
Finally, if you would like to contact our ministry directly, please feel free to do so from one of our FAQs.
Jim Daly is the President of Focus on the Family. He has been married to his wife, Jean, since 1986. They have two sons. The Daly family resides in Colorado Springs. Finding Home represents Jim's musings on work, family and faith.
-
Recently Written
-
Categories
-
Monthly Archives
-
Blogroll
-
Subscribe
Subscribe in a reader
© 2008 Focus on the Family. All rights reserved.
Thanks for your take on the subject Jim.
There is the reality that more people use more natural resources-but hopefully as a stewardship issue emerges we will use resourcefulness and God’s guidance to accomodate an increase in population. As I see it most of the world’s misery is caused by man’s inhumaity to man not resource scarcity. The problems are mostly moral.
This is much ado about nothing. Families are smaller primarily because (1) no need to have large families since more children survive to adulthood than in the past; (2) urbanization makes large families hard to manage; (3) children are not an economic asset like in the days of farming and small business; they are a cost and as we know from Economics 101, as the price of something does up, the demand goes down; (4) children were supposed to support parents in old age; now we have 401ks, IRAs, pensions, etc. that make this less of a need.
In short, as societies get richer and moe urban, family size naturally decreases to an equilibrium level; thus there is absolutely no need for governements to impose any limits.
I agree 100% with your article. As a follower of Christ, I suppose it’s easier for me to agree with that than it would be for an atheist.
I think it’s prudent for mankind to do what he can to use the earth’s resources responsibly. However, many are worshipping the creation rather than its Creator. Everywhere we look now it’s “green” this and “green” that, to the point where “Mother Earth” is the greatest politically correct idol of our time. It really is a tragedy. The people of the world seem to be running to and fro trying desperately to fix everything because they do not have the peace and assurance that God’s people possess. If people believe we humans are merely the product of some freak, random, unknown origin, they believe the future of the human race lies completely in our hands. On the other hand, if one trusts in God who is the Creator and sustainer of all life, he will not feel such an urgent need to “save the planet” because he knows that God is in control of all things.
Also, unbelieving mankind certainly cannot possibly value human life in the same way believers would, nor could they grasp the importance of attaching tremendous worth to EVERY human life. If we are nothing more than a high level of evolved species, of what consequence is it for us to conveniently dispose of those who may not help our species and may hinder us in our evolutionary climb to higher and higher levels by producing too much CO2 and making too much waste in the landfills and using up our food supply?
I believe it is a very REAL possibility that one day the government, whether U.S. or one-world” will impose “repoduction limits” on couples. I personally have heard many of our liberal citizens expressing their approval of such already.
Children are a gift from the Lord, no matter how many a couple decides to have. People’s reproductive rights should ALWAYS come before conservationalists’ agendas.
Thanks so much for your article!
Heidi L
(mother of 8 gifts from God)
I think it’s fairly alarmist to say that OPT’s rationale is that “saving the planet trumps human life.” Whether you believe in global warming or not, we can all see the negative effects of overpopulation, urban crowding, growing landfills, and polluted streams and rivers with our own eyes. No need for a degree in science, really. And anyone with a calculator can figure out that if we keep growing exponentially as a species, as we traditionally have, we’re not going to be able to feed ourselves in a generation or two. Why not urge people to start having smaller families? Seems pretty responsible to me.
Great analysis Jim. Remember Zero Population Growth from the 60’s? OPT is just a green version of ZPG. I seriously question the pseudo science behind global warming. In fact, the science is so shaky that they are changing the name to man made climate change, have you noticed that? Did you know that Al Gore is heavily invested in companies that benefit from the global warming frenzy? How about the fact that his house consumes more electricity in a month than most people use in a year?
There are those that advocate preserving forests, not for us to enjoy or for our children, rather, so that man can never step foot in them again. They equate a man stepping in a forest as worse than murder of a fellow human being.
You speak correctly that there is a move in place to marginalize the value of man. There are those who wish to improve their lot by elimination of those they deem undesirable.
Children are a blessing from God. I have been blessed by four, including one that has special needs. OPT would probably rather he weren’t here, but he is a blessing and loves the Lord.
Has anyone given much thought that the Green People like OPT are achieving their goals with the “green energy” for the “planet”? I started thinking about the fact that grains that would normally be sent or purchased by third world countries is being utilized for ethanol thus making it a huge challenge for these countries to feed their own. Thus this leads to a population control or elimination of people that I think is being missed.
There appears to be a direct correlation to this and the recent discovery by the college student about Planned Parenthood accepting money for the elimination of the black race. Unfortunately this race is part of the very people that appear to elect those into office that fund and approve this behavior. May God have mercy on our nation and may the people of this nation turn from our wicked ways and repent for the deeds we are approving through our laziness and lack of desire to be involved. Another note, can 32,000 scientists be wrong when they conclude that Global Warming is the biggest fraud ever committed in this country?