Is Human Sterilization Pro-Environment?

Drudge links to a story of a woman who had an abortion and then relentlessly pursued sterilization for the virtuous cause of protecting the planet.

Her ethical argument? 

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet."

Is she crazy?  Misguided, maybe, but not crazy.  I think she is acting consistently within her worldview.  I held a similar worldview when I was 18 and a freshman in college.

I spent my freshman year at Cal Poly Pomona.  Like many colleges in California in the 1980s, the eco movement was gaining significant traction.  One of my profs made us read a book called Muddling Toward Frugality.

The thesis of the book, as I recall, was that people are multiplying and consuming the earth's resources at an exponential rate.  The fear was that we were on a collision course with disaster.  Worldwide starvation, wars, and anarchy were in our future.  It was a stark picture.  It gripped me.  It robbed me of hope as I adopted it. 

It reminds me of the same fear surrounding global warming today.

If human beings are the problem, what is the solution?

Isn't it fewer human beings?  The woman in Drudge's article is quite right to argue that having children is selfish since they will draw down earth's reserves even further and for what?  Maintaining your genetic line.  How selfish!  If the goal is to protect the planet, then we should aggressively pursue population control.  Abortion makes perfect sense.   So does sterilization.  In fact, sterilization is quite virtuous.  It makes sense that her husband bought her a congratulation card honoring her "unselfishness".

Like all worldviews, her eco-centered worldview must bump up against reality.  She and her husband will both die off at some point.  Who will carry on their vision of zero population growth?  Certainly not her "genetic line."

This view of the world saddens me.  The memories of hopelessness are all too familiar as I think back upon a time in my life when I thought children were a curse on the world that was quickly running out of everything.  Thank you, God, for rescuing me from nihilism.   Thank you Christ for offering hope validated by the truth and reality of your resurrection from the dead.

Comments

[Rachael]

I think it is very sad that she thinks of having children as a selfish desire of adults. It is also sad that she had her abortion without any remorse.
You make a good point. No one will carry on their idea of sterilization if they don't have children!

[tgirsch]

Actually, I think that "fewer children" is the answer to a LOT of problems (e.g., poverty). Not necessarily the extreme of no children, but fewer.

[gr8hands]

OK, at the risk of appearing to poke a finger in the eye of anyone who has at least a soft spot for preservation or even (more nobly) conservation of the environment... Let's think a little broader: How small-minded of this person (or anyone of the militant environmentalists) to think that they have accurately defined the problem and to arrogantly believe that they are the solution to that problem. Often touted as a step toward enlightenment, these stark measures show how self serving these pursuits actually are; particularly when you think about how their crisis--and solution--is defined by their perception. Eco-centric? perhaps, but it's really Ego-centric...

[Rob Ryan]

My wife and I had two children. Barring unforeseen tragedy, we have provided replacements for ourselves. I must say I do not appreciate those who try to propagate their worldview by multiplying like rabbits. I think it is environmentally and societally irresponsible. Sadly, the more educated and affluent among us are often the least likely to have children. I don't support eugenics or Chinese-style limits on reproduction, but I think it's a shame that people don't realize that the earth has limited resources and that our species (nor others)doesn't benefit from the unchecked prolificity of the least intelligent and prosperous among us.

Our society has evolved to the point that selective pressures are scarcely brought to bear on our populace. The result will inevitably be the degradation of humanity. Of course, if we returned to a state of nature, my myopic self would undoubtedly miss a vine in mid-swing or provide a repast for some unseen predator, eliminating any further contribution to the gene pool on my part. Fortunately, my daughters have inherited my wife's laudable vision.

[Nick]

I agree with this posting in general and just wanted to comment on one part:
Who will carry on their vision of zero population growth? Certainly not her "genetic line."
and the comment from Rachael:
You make a good point. No one will carry on their idea of sterilization if they don't have children!

These comments ignore the power of cultural transmission and seem particularly odd coming from Christians. As Christians, we know the power of evangelism, and I think that it would be a very bad sign if a church depended solely on transmission of the faith from parent to child. It's not emphasized in protestant denominations any more, but for much of the Church's history, many people voluntarily gave up the possibility of having children. We call them priests, monks, and nuns. Many of those childless men and women, through their missionary work, were responsible for dramatically increasing the size of the church

Presumably, that woman also expected to convince other, unrelated, people that her ideas were correct.

[tgirsch]

What Nick said.

[Steve]

Nick,

While no doubt humans have had an impact in spreading the Christian faith, the missing factor that (I hope) is not present in the forced sterilization movement is the Holy Spirit's work in human hearts.

[Nick]

Steve,

FWIW, the linked article is about voluntary sterilization, not forced sterilization.

You're also right about the role of the Holy Spirit (though Christianity is not the only evangelical religion to have seen explosive growth). But, I was trying to express is that Christianity is not primarily a religion that depends on parent to child transmission of our beliefs. The great commission isn't to have lots of kids and fill the Sunday School. There are religions that don't proselytize: IIRC, Zoroastrianism is strictly based on ethnicity, and Judaism doesn't actively seek converts. But Christianity has always been a religion of evangelism and conversion.

That's why I found it odd that two people in this thread apparently couldn't figure out how the beliefs of childless people could persist after their deaths.

[Carl Holmes]

Those of us in the western world who have education and good jobs and have a grasp of the global situation and a well funded pension do not have a grasp of the issue from other perspectives very well.

We all know that the big growth in population is in India and China. Neither of those countries (China a little less so) offer any security to the elderly. They are poverty stricken in their working years, what happens when they can not work. You and I go to a retirement home and let Social Security pay our bills, they just die. What is their security? Have lots of children and hope one of them gets a good job and can take care of me in my old age.

Affluent westerners can all decide that one child is enough and we can dwindle ourselves down to a smaller society, but what happens when those nations just continue to grow?

Want to cure over population, cure poverty.

[Susannah]

Nick's point is well taken. I agree with him, and would add that I am concerned that the propagation of this woman's point of view (which no doubt is shared by others who actually wield some power and influence in the political world) is a grave threat to future human liberty.

God save us from those who consider it "progress" to measure the worth of human beings in terms of their dubiously calculated "carbon output." Some self-promoting demagogue convinces the weak-minded that the sky is falling, and somehow it becomes all my children's fault? Ding-dong! Nobody home. It does not compute.

Obviously, as a mother of six-going-on-seven, I take issue with some of the remarks in this comment thread. My husband and I are well educated, thanks, and decided to have a larger-than-average family for reasons of our own. Most of the large families with whom I am acquainted are devout, upstanding, and intelligent people, who do not breed "like rabbits" but rather quite purposefully--because they LOVE CHILDREN! Visit Katie Bettendorf's blog, for instance. Mom of 10, several adopted, who'd been thrown away by society into the nether-world of the state foster system. She's my hero. And she's not stopping anytime soon, God bless her. She's pregnant now.

I will go so far as to say that in my case, wanting more children than the average has nothing to do with propagating a certain worldview. If you want to know my reasons (which are thoroughly relational), you can always read my blog.

If I may borrow a "progressive" sentiment, I'll thank these folks to "keep their politics off my body." ;)

I find it offensive when people talk about large families as if they are mindlessly breeding litters of puppies or kittens. My children are thinking, feeling human beings, thanks, and would be more than capable of understanding the gist of, "You ought not be here, using *my* up precious resources" if you said it directly to them.

Don't worry. Whatever Al Gore may say, I can assure you my children will not breathe up all your air. I promise. It just isn't possible.

At any rate, they deserve to breathe as much as anyone else.

[tgirsch]

Carl:
Want to cure over population, cure poverty.

I think you have it exactly backward. Any parent (Western or otherwise) will tell you that children are easily the largest expense you'll ever undertake. For a person in poverty, having more children only serves to push them further into poverty.

[tgirsch]

Susannah:

#1, Nobody's denying your right to have lots of children; what we are doing is questioning the wisdom of doing so, given the long-term impact.
#2, Nobody's saying that global warming is "all your children's fault"; they're simply pointing out the obvious, which is that the more people there are, the more the problem will be exacerbated if something dramatic doesn't change.
#3, Smug dismissal of global warming and the impact human carbon consumption has on that does nothing to controvert the science.
#4, Global warming aside, natural resources are not infinite in quantity; in times of shortage, more people = less for each person. It's simple math. And lest you think I'm talking about some far-off hypothetical, allow me to direct your attention to the drinking water situation in Atlanta.
Finally, I think adoption is an extremely noble thing to do, and would recommend it to people who want to have large families, as an alternative to having more of their own children. Last I checked, there are over 155,000 children awaiting adoption in the US alone, so there's no worrying about supply.

[Rob Ryan]

Susannah: "If I may borrow a "progressive" sentiment, I'll thank these folks to 'keep their politics off my body.'" ;)

No one here has suggested laws limiting your reproductive choices. Attitudes like yours, however, may eventually force society's hand in that regard.

"Obviously, as a mother of six-going-on-seven, I take issue with some of the remarks in this comment thread."

I suppose we should be grateful that not everyone shares your reproductive philosophy; the world could not long sustain such a prodigious rate of reproduction. The earth is finite. Some people will have to pay the price if our population exceeds the environment's capacity to sustain it. Overpopulation is naturally corrected by massive die-offs due to famine, disease, and wars fought over dwindling resources. Children are particularly vulnerable in such a scenario.

I love children, too. I hate to think of millions of them suffering and dying due to our lack of foresight and restraint.

[Rachael]

Nick:
That is true. I do realize that you don't pass on beliefs only parent-to-child. I guess because this is such an uncommon view, you wouldn't suppose that this view would be commonly passed between people, whether it is parent-to-child or friend-to-friend.

[Carl Holmes]

Tgirsh,

respectfully I disagree, I work with these people EVERY day. Children are an expense yes, but that is not the point. Add religious beliefs into the mix about children as well and you have a lot of people having lots of chilren. Add the fact that in a lot of these places children go to work at age 10 or thereabouts and it is not as much of an expense. The child is expected to carry their own weight and to help the family early on.

[Susannah]

tgirsch, you are the one who has it backward. Carl Holmes is right on the money.

Corrupt and totalitarian governments, continual civil war, control-freak economics, and other human-induced factors are FAR greater contributers to poverty than innocent children could *ever* be. How can people farm and produce food to sustain themselves and sell, when they are continually threatened and displaced by "revolutionary" movements? When their farms are confiscated by the government and given to others?

BTW, it doesn't cost near as much as our government claims to feed, clothe and educate a child. Take it from a homeschooling, yard-salin'. food-co-oping-on-a-single-income mama. ;) It certainly doesn't cost me $9,600 a year to educate ONE SINGLE child, like it does the state (oh, so efficient with our money, the gov't is). Maybe $400-$500 to educate all of 'em, and I could even figure a way to reduce those costs if I had to. I have the luxury of purchasing most of my curriculum. Our biggest cost right now is housing, and that's only because we were forced to rent something right away in an overpriced market. We will be reducing that cost within a few months.

Also, mine eat like birds. I can still feed all of us a dinner on three to four chicken breasts, I kid you not. That will probably change as they hit adolescence.

Explain this: How can it be that only 2 percent of America's population is farming, and yet we are *still* paying a portion of them *not* to farm? Same in other Western countries as well? I'd say we have become pretty efficient at producing food. Human resources, as it turns out, are the most valuable resources of all. Up with people!

It's not that there aren't enough natural resources; if all the natural resources of the earth were evenly distributed, we'd still have more than plenty to go around. There's still more than enough space on the planet for well over the approx. 6 billion people who live on it right now.

The real problem is that corrupt and fallen people prevent the natural resources in their own countries from benefiting those who live under their oppressive rule. Even the food, medical supplies, and other resources sent over by wealthier countries doesn't reach its intended recipients. Thugs in the government or military or "revolutionary armies" co-opt it for their own profit.

*Sinful people* stand in the way of curing poverty.

And "education" against "ignorance" isn't the be-all, end-all, either. Perhaps if the problem originated in our minds, it might be.

Certainly, supplying children with the uniforms, books and other supplies they need to attend local schools goes a long way toward improving their communities in the future (Compassion International is one organization that does this sort of work, by the way--I highly recommend this organization as a practical solution to poverty, one person at a time, as it has a proven track record).

But the fact is, the problem resides primarily in the human heart. History has proven over and over that intelligence and evil easily coexist. The problem isn't ignorance, so much as sin.

I'm not being smug about global warming. The globe may very well be warming, I accept that; however, a person who honestly assesses the facts can only conclude that there really *isn't* a scientific consensus that there's a whole lot we human beings can do to prevent it. I won't go into those here as they are readily available for any open-minded person to read.

It's been turned into a political issue, first and foremost, and it's being used as a bludgeon against what many consider to be the "evils" of economic freedom. The fact is, though, economic freedom made us the most successful economy, not to mention the most energy-efficient nation, on the face of the planet. And if social, economic and political oppression could be done away with in other countries, over time freedom would have the same effect on their pollution issues as well.

Right now, the U.S. is right about at replacement rate with regard to reproduction. Other Western countries are below replacement rate. I think my half-dozen little kids are highly unlikely to tip the balance toward environmental apocalypse. Please!

Y'all are living proof that throwing away a knowledge of God inevitably undercuts the intrinsic value of human life.

Keep an eye on my blog for an upcoming birth announcement, Lord willing--if all goes well! :) Those of you who value new life can rejoice with us. The rest can lament my Gaia-destroying reproductive practices. ;)

[Carl Holmes]

You do my heart good with the Compassion International Plug... That is where I work!!!

[Mr. Dawntreader]

re: "Eco-centric? perhaps, but it's really Ego-centric..."

I'm glad someone pointed this out. A strong case could be made that the woman and her husband acted selfishly by avoiding children. Children require self-sacrifice. Avoiding children is the easy path. The irony is that this woman claims she is being unselfish. She is fooling only herself.

re: "I must say I do not appreciate those who try to propagate their worldview by multiplying like rabbits."

Take a look at the demographic trends in Europe sometime ... I bet you'll really get angry.

re: "Of course, if we returned to a state of nature, my myopic self would undoubtedly miss a vine in mid-swing or provide a repast for some unseen predator, eliminating any further contribution to the gene pool on my part."

And others who share a similar worldview simply choose to abort their offspring and sterilize themselves and accomplish the same thing.

re: "As Christians, we know the power of evangelism, and I think that it would be a very bad sign if a church depended solely on transmission of the faith from parent to child."

Understood. The thread is pointing out the simple irony that a militant environ. worldview considers humans as a plague on the planet ... a cancerous growth at best. The logical conclusion to any cancerous growth is to destroy it. This worldview is not only self-defeating, it is suicidal. That's the point. It is not a proposal on how to do Christian evangelism or a belief that childless people have zero impact on the world.

re: "I find it offensive when people talk about large families as if they are mindlessly breeding litters of puppies or kittens."

I do too. But remember, the people who truly believe this also believe that humans are co-equals with rabbits and puppies. It flows from a conviction that humans, rabbits, shellfish, and yeast are co-equals and all random accidents of nature blindly at work. Now, I would argue that folks that espouse this with their lips don't actually live as if it is true. When push comes to shove, especially involving their own loved ones, they don't think of them as rabbits or treat them as useless eaters.

re: "But the fact is, the problem resides primarily in the human heart."

Bingo. Poverty, like crime, is the result of moral choices and failures ... not biological ones. To be blunt, the language I see in this comment thread is frightening. The clear suggestion to have fewer people ... reduce mouths to feed ... reproduce the smartest and most intelligent among us ... and heap judgment on those who have more than 2 kids ... y'all, this is outright scary stuff. Anyone else recognize where this line of thinking has led humanity in the past ??

Case in point, folks. Worldviews are important and and ideas have consequences.

[tgirsch]

Susannah:
Corrupt and totalitarian governments, continual civil war, control-freak economics, and other human-induced factors are FAR greater contributers to poverty than innocent children could *ever* be.

Perhaps so, but more children only serves to exacerbate this problem. More mouths to feed = less per mouth. I don't see how you can avoid that simple math.

BTW, it doesn't cost near as much as our government claims to feed, clothe and educate a child.

I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant to this discussion, but as I mentioned in the voucher thread, using home schooling as a basis for comparison isn't a good starting point, because home schooling simply cannot scale. If you're fortunate enough to have a parent with the time, skill, and inclination to educate, sure you can save some big bucks. But most families lack at least one of those three critical things, and therefore will have to rely on someone else to educate their children. Once you have to rely on others, the costs increase dramatically, because there aren't many people at all who are both qualified and willing to educate somebody else's kids for free.

Also, mine eat like birds.

Birds have very fast metabolisms, and eat more relative to their body weight than most mammals. But I digress. :)

How can it be that only 2 percent of America's population is farming, and yet we are *still* paying a portion of them *not* to farm?

Factory farms have largely replaced family farms, and we import a lot more food than we used to (mainly from Mexico and China), which explains the low percentage. As for paying people *not* to farm, the justification there is soil preservation. It's long been known that over-farming leads to soil degradation, and abstention subsidies are a way to incent farms to give the soil a rest. Next question?

I'd say we have become pretty efficient at producing food.

Certain types, yes. But droughts, disease, and pest infestation can severely impact that. Staples are plentiful right now, but there's no guarantee that they'll stay that way.

It's not that there aren't enough natural resources; if all the natural resources of the earth were evenly distributed, we'd still have more than plenty to go around.

Except that the resources aren't evenly distributed, now are they? Unless you're going to suggest something like Communism, they never will be.

There's still more than enough space on the planet for well over the approx. 6 billion people who live on it right now.

Only if you assume that every square mile of land mass is equally habitable as every other. But it's not so. Look no further than most of Nevada, or the Australian Outback, or much of North Africa. Now, if the entire population were more urbanized, like Bangladesh of Shanghai, we could support more, at the expense of privacy and quality of living. But that's going to be a much tougher sell.

The problem isn't ignorance, so much as sin.

Then we may as well give up, because even the Bible tells us that sin isn't going anywhere.

a person who honestly assesses the facts can only conclude that there really *isn't* a scientific consensus that there's a whole lot we human beings can do to prevent it.

Prevent? Probably not. But limit the scope? Yes, we can. It's a question of whether or not we have the will to do it. The answer to that is, almost certainly not. In any case, why the need to wait for absolute certainty? If there are things we can do that ought to help, why not do them? If your child were diagnosed with a fatal disease, and your doctor gave you two choices, either do nothing, or try a treatment that has only a 20% chance of working, would you wait for the treatment to become 100% proven before you acted? I think not.

It's been turned into a political issue, first and foremost

Here I agree, but the politicization has been done largely by those who would deny global warming, and they've been doing it for 20 years or more. Al Gore is a relative newcomer to the scene. Also, I would ask you to contrast your complaint about "the 'evils' of economic freedom" against your complaint that natural resources aren't evenly distributed across the population.

The fact is, though, economic freedom made us ... the most energy-efficient nation, on the face of the planet.

I doubt that's true, even given the most strained definitions of "energy efficient." The US is the single largest producer of carbon emissions in the world (although China is rapidly gaining), despite having less than 5% of the world's total population.

I think my half-dozen little kids are highly unlikely to tip the balance toward environmental apocalypse.

No, but that's precisely because you're the exception rather than the rule. If more people thought like you and reproduced like you, the problem would be more severe. And assume, for the sake of argument, that environmental apocalypse is inevitable. If that's the case, then that's three times as much suffering as, say, Rob's two kids.

Y'all are living proof that throwing away a knowledge of God inevitably undercuts the intrinsic value of human life.

In what way? Nothing I have argued in any way devalues human life, unless me disagreeing with the idea that "more is always better" somehow constitutes undercutting the "intrinsic value" of human life. I concern myself not simply with quantity of human life, but also with quality of life.

My concern for the earth isn't some sort of pagan Gaia worship. It's a concern for the earth's ability to support future generations of people, with a minimum of starvation, thirst, disease, and suffering. If there weren't going to be future generations of people, who cares if we wreck the planet? My environmental concerns aren't born of a disregard for human life, but a deep concern for human life. It's too bad that you're too blinded by your Christian ideology to see that.

[tgirsch]

Mr. Dawntreader:
A strong case could be made that the woman and her husband acted selfishly by avoiding children.

Actually, I can see this argued both ways. But for what it's worth, I've never been shy about the fact that many of my reasons for not wanting children are selfish in nature. At the same time, though, I'm reluctant to slap the "selfish" label on anyone who doesn't have children, no matter what their reasons are, because of my firm belief that anyone who doesn't want children or is unwilling to properly care for their children should not have children.

The thread is pointing out the simple irony that a militant environ. worldview considers humans as a plague on the planet ... a cancerous growth at best.

There is an exteremist wing of the environmental movement that feels this way (see also VHEMT), but let's be careful about trying to paint with too broad a brush. I suspect that if I wrote a post about some militant and/or extremist Christian group (Phelps, anyone?), you'd be the first to object that this group is not in any way representative of the vast majority of Christians. So it is with environmentalists.

Poverty, like crime, is the result of moral choices and failures ... not biological ones.

I think you oversimplify this. There's a little of both going on. (Digression: Have you read The Tipping Point?)

reproduce the smartest and most intelligent among us

Woah, woah, wait a minute? Who here suggested anything like this? The suggestion that everyone should reproduce less is a much different thing that trying to mandate who does and does not reproduce. I'm going to throw a flag on that bait-and-switch, well before you start heading into Godwin's Law territory...

[Rob Ryan]

"Y'all are living proof that throwing away a knowledge of God inevitably undercuts the intrinsic value of human life."

This is a rather insulting and dismissive product of a non sequitur on your part. I do not value human life any less than you do, and I doubt tgirsch does either. O don't see how a responsible, practical, unselfish reproductive philosophy indicates reduced value of human life; I think it shows the opposite.

"Take a look at the demographic trends in Europe sometime ... I bet you'll really get angry."

I am aware of these trends. Why do you think I would be angry?

"And others who share a similar worldview simply choose to abort their offspring and sterilize themselves and accomplish the same thing."

Why do you think that matters at all to me? I don't know why you are making this observation. These people are making choices. They are not the choices I would make, so obviously their worldviews are only superficially similar to mine. If their choices make them happy, then I am happy for them.

"But remember, the people who truly believe this also believe that humans are co-equals with rabbits and puppies."

How does that follow? That statement is much more offensive than comparing the prolific reproduction of humans to that of rabbits. One is a useful simile; the other is blatant mischaracterization. I don't know a single person who considers humans to be "co-equals with rabbits and puppies". Is it OK to lie about me because you disagree with me, or do you really believe I place people on the same plane as small mammals?

[Rob Ryan]

"...y'all, this is outright scary stuff. Anyone else recognize where this line of thinking has led humanity in the past ??"

To me, there is nothing scary about honestly expressing an opinion, especially if one is prepared to support it. I specifically said at the outset that I did not advocate eugenics or Chinese-style rstrictions on reproduction. Is it too much to ask that people give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I do not favor Hitleresque or Stalinesque measures? ;-)

I am much more frightened by the repression of ideas than the free expression of them.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

re: "At the same time, though, I'm reluctant to slap the "selfish" label on anyone who doesn't have children, no matter what their reasons are, because of my firm belief that anyone who doesn't want children or is unwilling to properly care for their children should not have children."

Isn't unwillingness to care for their children selfish? How could it not be? Isn't not wanting children ultimately self-serving?

Let's call a spade a spade.

You would be hard pressed to define a scenario where unwillingness to care for children by the parent is because of the parent's altruism.

The solution is not to condone selfishness. The solution is a change of heart.

re: "There is an exteremist wing of the environmental movement that feels this way (see also VHEMT), but let's be careful about trying to paint with too broad a brush."

Fair point. But what the extremists and non-extremists both agree on is that humans are the problem. Less humans is better. Please point me to an environmental group that thinks large families are a blessing to the planet.

re: "I think you oversimplify this. There's a little of both going on. (Digression: Have you read The Tipping Point?)"

Yes, read the Tipping Point. How does that apply? Poverty is not a biological problem. If it were, then the biological vision of Germany in 1930's would be vindicated.

Let me quote Herr Hess

"National Socialism is nothing more than applied biology".

http://www.mrdawntreader.com/the_dawn_treader/2005/11/national_social.html

re: "Woah, woah, wait a minute? Who here suggested anything like this?"

Uh, go upwards and re-read please.

Quoting here ...

"Sadly, the more educated and affluent among us are often the least likely to have children. I don't support eugenics or Chinese-style limits on reproduction, but I think it's a shame that people don't realize that the earth has limited resources and that our species (nor others)doesn't benefit from the unchecked prolificity of the least intelligent and prosperous among us.

Our society has evolved to the point that selective pressures are scarcely brought to bear on our populace. The result will inevitably be the degradation of humanity."

Sadness? The argument here is clearly that it is unfortunate that natural selection doesn't do its job of weeding out the stupid people.

Please, let's not be coy here. These are clearly social Darwinist sentiments being expressed.

re: "Why do you think I would be angry?"

Because the Muslims are breeding like rabbits to use your term. Europe will be predominantly Muslim by 2050. I thought the high breeding patterns of religious groups bothered you.

re: "Why do you think that matters at all to me?"

Because you share a common presupposition with them. The planet is overcrowded. People are the problem. Fewer people is good. You should be applauding their virtuous behavior because they are following your shared presupposition to its logical conclusion.

re: "Is it OK to lie about me because you disagree with me, or do you really believe I place people on the same plane as small mammals?"

In one sense, yes I believe you do. The only thing distingushing us from our mammal brothers and sisters is our bigger brains, right? We are luckier than the small mammals. Or have I completely misunderstood you and you actually believe the difference between humans and mammals is the development of our souls?

re: "I specifically said at the outset that I did not advocate eugenics or Chinese-style rstrictions on reproduction."

Why not support eugenics? Positive eugenics is the encouraged reproduction of the brightest and heartiest human beings. What is your moral argument against positive eugenics?

[Nick]

Isn't unwillingness to care for their children selfish? How could it not be? Isn't not wanting children ultimately self-serving?
Let's call a spade a spade.
You would be hard pressed to define a scenario where unwillingness to care for children by the parent is because of the parent's altruism.

I think you are painting with a very broad brush and equivocating unwillingness to care for one's children with unwillingness to have children.

There are many different reasons not to have children, some selfish and some unselfish. I already mentioned the very strong Christian tradition of celibacy and childlessness among those who dedicate their lives to the Church. Are all those monks, nuns, and priests selfish?

Conversely, there are many people, perhaps most, who have children for selfish reasons. I suspect that most of us have children at least partly because we think they will bring us joy. Susannah writes that she has a large family because she genuinely likes children. Is that selfish?

All of us, from conservative Christians and "militant" evironmentalists have mixed motives.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Nick,

Fair points, my friend.

Please don't receive this next question as an attack. It is not. I simply don't know you well enough to know ... I wish we could be face to face friends instead of blog friends.

What I wanted to know was if you were married and have any children?

[Rob Ryan]

When one says something like this...

"But remember, the people who truly believe this also believe that humans are co-equals with rabbits and puppies."

...it implies a bit more than that the people you speak of do not believe in souls. It very strongly implies that such people do not value human life more. I do not know a single person who feels this way. It is distressing that the mere lack of a god-belief subjects one to such unflattering and inaccurate characterizations.

As for eugenics, I'm all for smart people marrying other smart people and having smart babies. I do not, however, want to see this philosophy enshrined in the law of the land. I suppose I consider tyranny worse than a degraded species. Because I honestly stated that I would prefer fitter specimens to reproduce more than unfit specimens, you seem to assume that I want to see the unintelligent and impoverished smited by the hand of nature. I do not. I dedicate my life in part to improving their lot.

I merely lamented a state of affairs; I did not suggest a solution. You seem to be manifesting a latent talent for spinning observations in the most unflattering ways imaginable, even going so far as to suggest that not having children is selfish. Isn't it possible that sometimes not having children is a selfless act? Suppose one would like to have children, but forebears to do so because one lacks the ability to provide an environment conducive to a child's health and well-being. Is that selfish?

[Nick]

I can't think why I'd interpret those questions as an attack...

Yes, I'm married

We have one child. We hope to have another.

I think we'll probably stop at two, but both of us come from smallish families. We're a couple of generations removed from farms with lots of kids.

[Mr. Dawntreader]

Rob,

re: "I merely lamented a state of affairs; I did not suggest a solution."

I know. The problem, of course, is not everyone has your heart and compassion for the less fortunate. Others lament the sad state of the human species and want to apply good old American can-do pragmatism in fixing it. America was the leader in the eugenic movement well before Germany. In fact, early German leaders in the movement looked with awe and respect to the American pioneers in the field of eugenics. It is the sad secret of American history that seems to get skipped in most U.S. history classes.

These well meaning scientists and thinkers followed social Darwinism to its logical conclusion. They also lamented the sad state of the species. They sought to improve society by giving evolution a helping hand. Like Herr Hess, it was simply a matter of applied biology to them.

I am relieved that you find their worldview as repugnant as any decent human being should. You had me concerned with some of the sentiments you expressed. I am glad I was mistaken about your true feelings and beliefs.

[tgirsch]

Mr. Dawntreader:
Isn't unwillingness to care for their children selfish? How could it not be? Isn't not wanting children ultimately self-serving?

Two things here. The first is poor phrasing on my part. In my sloppy wording of "unwillingness to care for their children," what I was getting at is that someone is not willing to make the types of sacrifices necessary to properly raise a child should not have a child. I think you would agree with me that becoming a parent isn't something to be taken lightly.

The other thing is that we seem to be using two different meanings of "selfish." There's a difference between simple concern for oneself, and concern for oneself to the detriment of others. Abstaining from an action that requires great commitment and long-term sacrifice is not, in my estimation, the same kind of selfishness as, say, hoarding all of a resource and refusing to share it in a time of need (or selling at a steep price in that time of need). Can you see that difference?

You would be hard pressed to define a scenario where unwillingness to care for children by the parent is because of the parent's altruism.

Unwillingness to care for an existing child for this reason, I'd be forced to agree. Unwillingness to even have a child, because of an unwillingness to make those sacrifices, on the other hand, might not rightly be described as "altruism," but it ain't miserism either.

But what the extremists and non-extremists both agree on is that humans are the problem.

I don't see how you can deny that.

Please point me to an environmental group that thinks large families are a blessing to the planet.

OK. Next? :)

But seriously, I think a lot of your perspective here is going to rest upon what your view of the Earth is. Is it a gift to be used and exploited as we see fit? Or is it something for which we have an obligation to engage in responsible stewardship? Setting aside my personal view, I think the Biblical case is for the latter.

Now let's pretend to agree, just for the sake of argument, that human activity really is dramatically altering the planet, and not for the better. Doesn't our God-given responsibility as stewards of creation compel us to do whatever is necessary to right that wrong?

And is God's request for more children so unconditional that He would have us crank out as many as possible, even beyond our ability to provide for them?

Yes, read the Tipping Point. How does that apply? Poverty is not a biological problem.

Not directly. But because of the way people are wired (biology), they're disturbingly easy to manipulate. I could make you considerably more likely to agree with me simply by getting you to nod your head while you read what I write. This ease of manipulation helps fuel the types of corruption that help fuel continued and worsening poverty. But again, I think this is a larger discussion, beyond the scope of this particular topic, so I apologize for introducing the digression.

The argument here is clearly that it is unfortunate that natural selection doesn't do its job of weeding out the stupid people.

I don't think that's the "clear argument" here at all. The first big mistake you make here, to your eternal discredit, is to conflate "educated" with "intelligent." The two aren't even close to the same thing, and I'd expect you to know better.

Setting that aside, however, I do not think that lamenting the disproportionately low reproduction rate of the educated and affluent is anywhere even close to suggesting that we ought to control who does and does not breed, or to only breed the most educated and affluent among us, as you infer.

I don't ascribe to the "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed" movement, and I seriously doubt Rob Ryan does, either.

You should be applauding their virtuous behavior because they are following your shared presupposition to its logical conclusion.

And here, in a nutshell, is your biggest problem. You're so ideologically opposed to all things environmentalist, you seem to be quite literally incapable of acknowledging the existence of a middle ground. Why can't "fewer children" just mean "fewer children" to you? Why must there be no middle ground between "have as many children as you can" and "have no children at all?" Really, Jeff, you're a lot smarter than this, and you disappoint me (and degrade yourself) by trying to force the issue into the absolute furthest extremes.

Or have I completely misunderstood you and you actually believe the difference between humans and mammals is the development of our souls?

Again with the false dilemmas. Just because your view is that EITHER humans have been imbued by God with an Immortal Soul(tm), OR they're no different whatsoever than cockroaches, doesn't mean we have to share that simplistic view.

What is your moral argument against positive eugenics?

Ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?

In any case, that's a cheap shot, and I think you know it. We've been through this before, but Rob and I could just as easily ask you what YOUR moral argument against slavery is, since you claim your morals are exclusively Biblically based, and the Bible never even obliquely condemns it.

[tgirsch]

Mr. Dawntreader:

First and foremost, I'd like to see you substantively address Nick's points, rather than simply acknowledging that they're "valid."

Moving on:

America was the leader in the eugenic movement well before Germany.

A reason to remember and learn from history, no doubt. But I still fail to see how any discussion of voluntary population control must inevitably lead to forced eugenics. Again, your blindness to any sort of middle ground is stunning.

In my estimation, you're just a wee bit too quick to go marching off into Godwin-land. In the future, I might suggest asking for clarification before you poison the well by bringing up the eugenics movement and the Nazis.

One more thing:

Because the Muslims are breeding like rabbits to use your term. Europe will be predominantly Muslim by 2050.

This, I suspect, is the real reason why the major religions put so much emphasis on having lots of children. Because if there are ever more of "them" than there are of "us," "we" lose. Best thing to do, then, is to outbreed "them."

In any case, wouldn't this trend present some unique missionary opportunities in Europe? :)

[tgirsch]

I posted a couple of messages here last week, and they appear to have been eaten by a spam filter or something.

[Wario clone 1]

whaaa---? I think that she's crazy... I mean no children!?!?! How would life continue??? Clones that make more clones?!?!? (sheesh...)

[tgirsch]

OK, there my comments are. Apparently they were just slow to be moderated. Sorry for the mix-up.