Picture
The Apostle Paul said that the latter-days would be perilous times. Well, here’s more proof that he was right.

For the last few years the traditional family has been under attack from gay marriage activists. Now the traditional family is being attacked by another group of activists, the eco-nazis. Yes, Satan has launched a two-pronged, flanking action against the traditional family. This should come as no surprise, however. The family is the core unit of the Plan of Salvation and he would like nothing more than to tear it down.

Who are the eco-nazis? They come in many different shapes and sizes, but the most dangerous are the “enlightened” intelligentsia who live in ivory towers and work in great and spacious buildings on university and government campuses. They are suggesting that couples limit the number of children they have to minimize humanity’s carbon footprint.

Casey Jones, a member of the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board recently rang the overpopulation alarm with this statement: “We can start teaching our kids the new math, the socially, environmentally and fiscally responsible, not to mention carbon neutral, math -- 1 adult + 1 adult = 2 children. That way we can carry on the species without straining our schools and the planet.”  http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12978247

A group of statisticians from Oregon State University recently suggested that people reduce carbon footprinting by limiting the number of kids they have. Statistician Paul Murtaugh stated: “"In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. . . . But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/07/oregon_state_researchers_concl.html

And Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s recent pick as the science and technology czar, has, in the past, made dire predictions about the impact of population growth. Here were his shocking recommendations: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. . . . [I]t has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. . . . If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

We should be good and proper stewards of the earth and its resources, but when we use carbon footprinting as an excuse for not having children, we’ve gone too far. When carbon footprinting takes precedence over people’s wishes to have children, we’ve gone too far.

The only footprints parents should be concerned about are the ones they get on cardstock in the hospital delivery room after their babies arrive, and the muddy ones they find on the kitchen floor as their children grow up.
 


Comments

Tim

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:25:47 pm

I agree that there's a lot of room for people on this good Earth.
However, I'm fairly certain that the earth could not handle six billion people that use up as many resources as the average American--certainly not for long-term. As the standard of living in other countries increases, something has to give. People like Casey Jones say that population numbers have to give, so that the only people who have to sacrifice anything are those who want larger families. I'd respond and say that we should cut down our resource use (Western Europe uses about half of what we use and gets by just fine).

 

Tim

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:26:28 pm

Just to clarify my last comment--I'm talking about resource use per capita.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 1:42:59 pm

Re:"I'd respond and say that we should cut down our resource use."

I'd rather we invest more American money and might into developing new technologies and energy sources.If we can develop a nuclear bomb and put man on the moon, then you'd think we have the ability to develop breakthrough homegrown energy sources.

 

Stan

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 2:46:52 pm

Tim is right, we currently don't have the resources in place to support everyone on the planet living as we Americans do. Unchecked exponential growth will certainly lead to tremendous suffering and death. While many are counting on a saviour to step in before that happens, I don't think it's wise to sit back and wait for him. That's like not saving for retirement cause you're of the chosen generation to usher in the millenium. Foolish. I don't think it is wise to accuse those who aren't counting on a savior to rescue us from ourselves as tools of Satan just because they are taking steps to prevent what they view as a catastrophic collapse.

I wouldn't count on technology either. Technology certainly allows for more humans to consume the Earth's resources and ideally would allow less resource consumption per capita, but it puts us in a precarious position. Think of what would happen now if we lost some key technology in food production and distribution, like a few shortened growing seasons due to another global mini ice age, or lack of oil to drive tractors and trucks. Utterly unthinkable.

Imagine if you're a gumball in a candy machine. You start out with just a few gumballs but double the number every few minutes. Everything is hunky dory even when the candy machine is only half full (or half empty =:) You look around and say there's plenty of room for more gumballs. What you don't realize is that you are on the last of many a doubling of gumballs and the gumball machine fills in the same amount of time as all the other doublings and bursts to pieces before you can do anything.

No, I wouldn't call those trying to avoid a total collapse of the gumball machine tools of Satan.

 

Jared*

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 5:22:47 pm

The Holdren quote is not quite what it appears to be.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

 

Ken

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 7:23:16 pm

I agree that the global warming environmentalist wacko crowd is way off the mark on this one.

How about those of us who refuse to have children because we just don't want the responsibility of being parents?

 

Dave C.

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 8:49:00 pm

As a general reply to some very good comments, I quote a section of the first presidency's proclamation to the world:
"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

As I see it, the problems we currently face have nothing to do with having children, but everything to do with mis-managing resources and greed among the upper classes (big houses, big autos, big trips, fancy planes, big yards to mow and water, etc). I don't think the average middle class US denizen is guilty of energy greed, but he could probably do with some education on how to be more energy efficient. Tim pointed out that we could learn some energy efficiency tips from the Europeans - I agree.

Jared* you are welcome to make apologies for Holdren, but please explain what you mean. If a supreme court justice nominee can get hammered for comments made long ago, then so can a presidential czar, even if they denounce those statements later in life.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 9:00:09 pm

Ken,

To those who don't want the responsibility for raising kids, you are missing out on one of life's greatest joys (and pains, but you take the good with the bad, eh?)

 

Mark D.

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:31:46 pm

<em>Every day the food supply is shrinking away! With starvation at our door what can we do? Licensing of children is the answer, my friend! Without it, the rest of us are through!

Who can survive? Who can survive?
Not one of us will be alive!
Who can be strong? Who can be strong?
When all the food is gone?

Zero population is the answer my friend.
Without it the rest of us are doomed.</em>

 

Dave C.

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:10:03 am

Mark,

Ah yes, some good old lyrics from the Saturday's Warrior days. How clever.

The last time I watched that program I had two thoughts. People who die and enter the spirit world probably do not visit spirits waiting in the premortal realm. And I said, "How did they get an actor to smoke in an LDS production? Was he LDS!?" Of course, Kirby smoked in Saints and Soldiers, but he puffed on herbal cigarettes, right? Hmm, avoid the appearance of evil, though, right? After he smoked those herbal cigs I guess it was no problemo appearing in a beer commercial. Oh, the slipperly slope of decaying moral values.

 

green mormon architect

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:04:50 pm

First time to your blog. I find it unfortunate that someone who is concerned about the future of this planet and attempting to look for solutions is labeled by you as an eco-nazi and a tool of Satan.

If you are interested, I have done a post on this at:
http://greenmormonarchitect.blogspot.com/2008/07/three-reasons-population-control-doesnt.html

 

Dave C.

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 2:11:38 pm

Green Mormon,

I find it unfortunate that you confuse someone who is concerned about the environment with someone who proposes a reduction in birth rates to solve our environmental and energy problems. The former is a good citizen, the latter is a tool of the devil

Please read my posts carefully. I occassionally encounter this sort of reading into the text what is not there. The result is that I get accused of saying something that I did not say.

I did not say that people who are concerned about the environment are tools of the devil. People who are concerned to the point of suggesting that we minimize birth rates to solve our problems are tools of the devil (second to last paragraph).

 

Jared*

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 4:02:41 pm

Dave,

The point is that there isn't much to apologize for. The offending paragraph was not a recommendation.

"We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions."

 

Jason C

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 9:17:26 pm

Don't worry, Dave ... clearly any nonchallant discussion of compulsory abortion is terrible despite any disclaimer.

Two things should be made clear, because Western (could it also coincide with wholesale acceptance of feminism?) nations currently average birth rates below what is required for sustaining a population (2.1). First, populations are maintained by immigration. From what I know of Islam, Muslim immigrants will have children. In only a few generations, zero population agendas may be moot, and groups who limit their children will quickly dwindle to a minority. Second, people on an underpopulated, wealthy land may one day be forced to move over by people spilling over from an overpopulated one.

That's my 2 cents.

In light of these thoughts, population control may be a dim-witted action.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 9:59:26 pm

Jason,

Re: "clearly any nonchallant discussion of compulsory abortion is terrible despite any disclaimer."

A big fat ditto on that one.

Thanks.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics