“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it… (Genesis 1:28)”
In the Old Testament, when God uttered the above words to Adam and Eve (around 4,000 B.C.E. according to fundamentalist doctrine that insists the earth is approximately 6,000 years old), only two people lived on the planet. In reality, archaeological evidence clearly supports the hypothesis that at 4,000 B.C.E., all the continents, excluding Antarctica, were inhabited and the global population was approximately 7-10 million. Today there are almost 7 billion people living on a finite earth. One could say that God’s commandment has been fulfilled, but zealous fundamentalists (not just “born again” Christians but also Catholics, Mormons and Muslims) continue to procreate exponentially. This is a problem.
The human species already sequesters half of the Earth’s productivity for itself. For every photon of sunlight captured by every plant and converted to biomass in the world, humans are consuming half of that biomass. This reality does not bode well for the other 30 million or so other species that inhabit the planet who also require productivity for their own survival. In basic math, what humans consume is unavailable to others, and as human population increases, other species populations will necessarily decrease: more people = death to everyone else.
Americans consume so much that according to most environmentalists, we would need the resources of 5 earths if everyone on the planet lived as we do (1). Genius is not required to see that this is unsustainable and that the above alarming mathematics are almost entirely attributable to too many people, but that doesn’t stop the faithful from filling up the earth even more (2).
The fundamentalist Christian ideal of having many children arises from the beliefs that:
1. Overpopulation is a myth. “The real problem is not overpopulation, but corrupt governments, war, abuse of natural resources and resource distribution (3).” Fundamentalists insist we have not fully exploited the agricultural potential of the land base and that technology will accommodate an increasing population.
2. Fundamentalists subscribe to the belief of human exceptionalism or the idea that our species Homo sapiens is superior to and has dominion over all others.
There is no denying that much of the world’s poverty could be alleviated if food and other resources were more equitably distributed. The problem is that having more children will not resolve these problems, and having more children that enjoy the western lifestyle will only increase the inequity.
It is also true we have not developed every acre on earth of arable land for agriculture. We could cut down more forests (as is taking place at an alarming rate in Latin America) and drain more wetlands (almost half of the world’s wetlands have already been lost). The world we would end up with would be one that provided food for humans but little habitat for any other species. The agricultural earth would also be hotter and dryer with much higher sea levels and dramatic weather patterns, since forests are huge regulators of global weather. The fundamentalist argument for creating more agricultural land to support an increasing population is reasonable if we want to live in a world packed with people but without any biodiversity, bird song or shaded spaces.
What kind of planet do you want to live on? The earth I love and feel blessed to live on has open spaces teeming with wildlife, vast acreages of unspoiled forests, wetlands and prairies, birds, butterflies and wildflowers galore just outside my door and oceans with coral reefs and fish. I don’t want to live in a world without these things. Human exceptionalism insists that our numbers are more important than a healthy ecosystem, which is fine if you want to live on a planet that is dominated by humans, crab grass, flies, rats and cockroaches.
Humans are exceptional in one respect - in their ability to sequester all the resources for themselves. In nature, when a virus or bacterial infection spreads unchecked, it is called a disease. When an organism multiplies without restraint, it is referred to as a biological nuisance. When cells grow out of control, it is cancer. Within nature, people are a cancer upon the planet.
I am currently acquainted with a good Christian woman who is incubating her 7th child. I am not ashamed to admit I am disgusted by her excessive fecundity, even though I can acknowledge that from her myopic perspective, she sincerely believes she is fulfilling her Christian duty. I recently overheard my acquaintance telling one of her brood they couldn’t go to Sonic™ because they couldn’t afford it. It’s bad enough overpopulating an already overpopulated planet, but someone who can’t afford to feed her children fast food has no business having more children (in my opinion). If one cannot afford fast food for seven children, how can they possibly afford college educations? Most likely, the children will not go to college and will end up uneducated and superstitious like their parents, believing it is their Christian duty to bring even more children they can’t afford into an already overpopulated world.
For all the conservative disdain of public welfare, all these fecund fundamentalists are placing a huge burden on the tax base. Even if they are not on food stamps and Medicaid (which plenty of them are), a public education for a child from k-12 now costs over a hundred-thousand dollars. Many fundamentalists will home school their progeny to protect them from the evils of a science-based education, but in the case of my acquaintance and many others, this is not the case. She spends way too much time at the gym to be schooling or even spending quality time with her six, soon to be seven children. Our taxes will be paying close to a million dollars to educate her children.
Fundamentalists insist that fertile couples need to have “at least three (4)” children in order to deliberately increase the population according to Biblical dictates. To produce fewer is considered “selfish.” I think it is selfish for one organism to place its own welfare above the welfare of all other living things.
References
1- You can check your own footprint with the consumption calculator at http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/
2- http://www.twoorthree.net/ offers Biblical justification for fundamentalist doctrines, very interesting.
3- http://www.twoorthree.net/2007/07/the-christian-1.html
4- Ibid.
In the Old Testament, when God uttered the above words to Adam and Eve (around 4,000 B.C.E. according to fundamentalist doctrine that insists the earth is approximately 6,000 years old), only two people lived on the planet. In reality, archaeological evidence clearly supports the hypothesis that at 4,000 B.C.E., all the continents, excluding Antarctica, were inhabited and the global population was approximately 7-10 million. Today there are almost 7 billion people living on a finite earth. One could say that God’s commandment has been fulfilled, but zealous fundamentalists (not just “born again” Christians but also Catholics, Mormons and Muslims) continue to procreate exponentially. This is a problem.
The human species already sequesters half of the Earth’s productivity for itself. For every photon of sunlight captured by every plant and converted to biomass in the world, humans are consuming half of that biomass. This reality does not bode well for the other 30 million or so other species that inhabit the planet who also require productivity for their own survival. In basic math, what humans consume is unavailable to others, and as human population increases, other species populations will necessarily decrease: more people = death to everyone else.
Americans consume so much that according to most environmentalists, we would need the resources of 5 earths if everyone on the planet lived as we do (1). Genius is not required to see that this is unsustainable and that the above alarming mathematics are almost entirely attributable to too many people, but that doesn’t stop the faithful from filling up the earth even more (2).
The fundamentalist Christian ideal of having many children arises from the beliefs that:
1. Overpopulation is a myth. “The real problem is not overpopulation, but corrupt governments, war, abuse of natural resources and resource distribution (3).” Fundamentalists insist we have not fully exploited the agricultural potential of the land base and that technology will accommodate an increasing population.
2. Fundamentalists subscribe to the belief of human exceptionalism or the idea that our species Homo sapiens is superior to and has dominion over all others.
There is no denying that much of the world’s poverty could be alleviated if food and other resources were more equitably distributed. The problem is that having more children will not resolve these problems, and having more children that enjoy the western lifestyle will only increase the inequity.
It is also true we have not developed every acre on earth of arable land for agriculture. We could cut down more forests (as is taking place at an alarming rate in Latin America) and drain more wetlands (almost half of the world’s wetlands have already been lost). The world we would end up with would be one that provided food for humans but little habitat for any other species. The agricultural earth would also be hotter and dryer with much higher sea levels and dramatic weather patterns, since forests are huge regulators of global weather. The fundamentalist argument for creating more agricultural land to support an increasing population is reasonable if we want to live in a world packed with people but without any biodiversity, bird song or shaded spaces.
What kind of planet do you want to live on? The earth I love and feel blessed to live on has open spaces teeming with wildlife, vast acreages of unspoiled forests, wetlands and prairies, birds, butterflies and wildflowers galore just outside my door and oceans with coral reefs and fish. I don’t want to live in a world without these things. Human exceptionalism insists that our numbers are more important than a healthy ecosystem, which is fine if you want to live on a planet that is dominated by humans, crab grass, flies, rats and cockroaches.
Humans are exceptional in one respect - in their ability to sequester all the resources for themselves. In nature, when a virus or bacterial infection spreads unchecked, it is called a disease. When an organism multiplies without restraint, it is referred to as a biological nuisance. When cells grow out of control, it is cancer. Within nature, people are a cancer upon the planet.
I am currently acquainted with a good Christian woman who is incubating her 7th child. I am not ashamed to admit I am disgusted by her excessive fecundity, even though I can acknowledge that from her myopic perspective, she sincerely believes she is fulfilling her Christian duty. I recently overheard my acquaintance telling one of her brood they couldn’t go to Sonic™ because they couldn’t afford it. It’s bad enough overpopulating an already overpopulated planet, but someone who can’t afford to feed her children fast food has no business having more children (in my opinion). If one cannot afford fast food for seven children, how can they possibly afford college educations? Most likely, the children will not go to college and will end up uneducated and superstitious like their parents, believing it is their Christian duty to bring even more children they can’t afford into an already overpopulated world.
For all the conservative disdain of public welfare, all these fecund fundamentalists are placing a huge burden on the tax base. Even if they are not on food stamps and Medicaid (which plenty of them are), a public education for a child from k-12 now costs over a hundred-thousand dollars. Many fundamentalists will home school their progeny to protect them from the evils of a science-based education, but in the case of my acquaintance and many others, this is not the case. She spends way too much time at the gym to be schooling or even spending quality time with her six, soon to be seven children. Our taxes will be paying close to a million dollars to educate her children.
Fundamentalists insist that fertile couples need to have “at least three (4)” children in order to deliberately increase the population according to Biblical dictates. To produce fewer is considered “selfish.” I think it is selfish for one organism to place its own welfare above the welfare of all other living things.
References
1- You can check your own footprint with the consumption calculator at http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/
2- http://www.twoorthree.net/ offers Biblical justification for fundamentalist doctrines, very interesting.
3- http://www.twoorthree.net/2007/07/the-christian-1.html
4- Ibid.
Why would anyone want to have children come into this world of disasters? Why would you want to see your offspring suffer?
ReplyDeleteLiberality, your sentiments are sad but true. So many children that nobody wants are already here.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of planet do you want to live on? The earth I love and feel blessed to live on has open spaces teeming with wildlife, vast acreages of unspoiled forests, wetlands and prairies, birds, butterflies and wildflowers galore just outside my door and oceans with coral reefs and fish. I don’t want to live in a world without these things. Human exceptionalism insists that our numbers are more important than a healthy ecosystem, which is fine if you want to live on a planet that is dominated by humans, crab grass, flies, rats and cockroaches.
ReplyDeleteHumans are exceptional in one respect - in their ability to sequester all the resources for themselves. In nature, when a virus or bacterial infection spreads unchecked, it is called a disease. When an organism multiplies without restraint, it is referred to as a biological nuisance. When cells grow out of control, it is cancer. Within nature, people are a cancer upon the planet.
Another fantastic post. These two paragraphs really stood out for me. It's truly inconceivable that anyone who professes to love their Creator could feel no obligation to appreciate and care for the entire creation, which was ostensibly created for all of life, all the while speaking grandly about salvation.
One could, and should, make the argument that, in that light, humans are supposed to help rather than hinder and destroy. One could also make the argument that, in destroying it, we are only giving obeisance to those other gods, Greed and Mammon.
I sometimes refer to this passage in the book of Revelation (11:18):
The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great--and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
It seems like an odd non sequiter at the end but there it is. Unfortunately it appears that God's destruction might entail many more of us than we like to think.
I spent some time at the site twoorthree.net. As you say, it was very interesting. How lovely that they bring up the possibility that the anti-Christ will be an environmentalist. How positively Rovian!
I also very much "enjoyed" the Consumer Consequences game. Very informative in a more immediate way than just reading about it. It's not perfect though. For example, I don't own a car or gasoline-powered vehicle---only a bicycle. It didn't supply that option in their questions though. It assumed that I did have one and that I used gasoline.
I was horrified that my worst scoring came from the section about food choices. I KNEW it was bad but this really punched me in the gut.
Thank you for everything, killing Mother.
Thank you for the important post and the link to the Consumer Consequences game.
ReplyDeleteI know we're consuming too much
petroleum, meat products, and such,
...and we all should think twice
...since our world pays the price
for convenience we use as a crutch.
It was very interesting, but I had to guess on some of my answers.
There should be a question on the number of children the respondent has had. If world population had stabilized at 1 billion, wouldn't everyone be able to live like an American?
Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb had a profound impact on my world view. The logic is irrefutable, even if the exact time and shape of events are hard to foresee.
Isn't it ironic? Many Christians expect the Apocalypse to come soon, while human actions are indeed most likely to lead to disastrous consequences.
Tsisageya, while I am not a fan of Revelation in general (I think its inclusion in the New Testament was a mistake, as Christ is a completely different character in the Revelation narrative than he is throughout the gospels), the passage you quote is nevertheless one of my favorites too - just the last phrase.
ReplyDeleteMy score in the consumer game was abysmal (5) largely because of transportation. I live out in the country and have to drive 20 minutes just to buy milk. I thought I would get some points for growing most of my own food, but that didn't seem to make a dent. Oh well. I guess we all just have to do what we can in our own little spheres of influence.
Rhymer, Thank you once again for your poignant rhyme. I have not read Ehrlich's Population Bomb but will add it to my reading stack, which grows exponentially but never seems to decrease.
ReplyDeleteRe: Apocalypse, you are so right on. We don't need a wrathful God to bring his vengence upon us and finish us off at Armageddon. We are doing a fine job of it ourselves.
Though its inclusion may have been a mistake, I actually like the book of Revelation for the same reason I like the book of Isaiah. It's the same reason I love the scene in the gospels of Jesus cleaning out the temple and overturning tables and such. But first he stopped to make a whip of some sort. I just love that.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to mention my score. It was pretty good at 0.7 until I got to the food section. Then it jumped to 3.7 (yikes!)and that's how it ended up. Like Rhymer said though, I had to guess at some stuff. I'll be trying it again.
Rhymer, nice rhyme!
Woo Hoo, This post got some press from a conservative Christian website where I am described as a "radical anti-humanist environmentalist." To set the record clear, I am not anti-human. I am pro-life in the all-encompassing way. I think all life is sacred, and too many people are not good for humans and all other living things on Planet Earth.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/04/13/radical-environmentalismscientist-call-humans-cancer-on-the-earth/
Wow. I can't even. Mr. Smith does a good I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I impression. Perhaps he's never read the book of Genesis (6:5-6) regarding the days of Noah and humans as cancer upon the earth. God grieved over having created them.
ReplyDeleteThe LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
Maybe he's never read the book of Mathew either (24:37-39) where Jesus says pretty much the same thing.
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
There was an ad over there that I couldn't help clicking on. Something called The Prayer Company is selling something called 7+7 Anointing Oil---Healing the Nations in Jesus's Name---Private Label available.
Wow. I can't even.
Anyone with eyes to see knows that you are not anti-human, killing Mother. The adversary (loaded word, I know) is very good at projection.
Tsisageya, As a follower of Yeshua, your insights are really appreciated. I do not consider myself a Christian, but I do believe that Jesus was a great man and prophet, and if he were alive today, he would be alarmed by the atrocities people are committing in his name.
ReplyDeleteAs you are obviously aware, Scripture is a complex and mixed bag of ideas and values drawn from a number of time periods and historical realities and written by very real and (like the rest of us) flawed human beings. Some people insist on taking the most destructive, bigoted and violent passages from the work and focusing on those aspects to support their ideology of hate. I think this is sad. So much wisdom can be gleaned from the Bible if it is only read with an open and compassionate mind as you do. Thank you very much for this contribution.
killing Mother, thank you. I just figure that being able to fight fire with fire, in cases like this, comes in pretty handy. I can't stand what these people do and say in the name of a God they don't even try to know or understand. As you say, he would be alarmed by the atrocities people are committing in his name.
ReplyDeleteI've tried, through the years, to become familiar with scripture from a LOT of different religions. This was partly because of my own personal quest but also so that I could have many arrows in my quiver, so to speak. Plus, it's fascinating to me. I just happen to be most familiar with the Bible since that's the direction I finally chose. In this case, I don't think Mr. Smith could refute it if I were to post the same response over there. He would try but it would indeed get ugly. I'd rather stay here.
I know you don't consider yourself a Christian but you seem pretty familiar with the Bible. Remember the story of Jesus going into the desert for forty days and forty nights? Finally satan came to him and quoted scripture to get him to elevate himself and test God. Jesus quoted the overruling scripture each time and finally sent him on his way.
It doesn't matter if this is literally true or just figurative. The story, like good poetry, says the same thing either way and can't really be argued with. As you know, it's mighty good to have a full quiver.
Thank you, killing Mother. I hope I'm not talking too much.
Liberality writes: "Why would anyone want to have children come into this world of disasters? Why would you want to see your offspring suffer?"
ReplyDeleteMay I ask why you choose to go on living -- I mean, if this is such a rotten "world of disasters"? The ZPG crowd seems to love life for itself, and loves doing things it enjoys, but, when it comes to the prospect of letting another human being come into existence, suddenly it becomes a "world of disasters" to which no one should be subjected. Quite a swinging door you have there.
bmmg39, for a self-described "grammarian," you certainly take a lot of liberties with the rules of logic. First of all, one person's opinion on the state of the world does not reflect a concensus on the part of all people who would like to see the human population stabilized. Also, admiting that the world has some serious problems and that the vast majority of people who enter it today will be subjected to hardship does not imply that one does not enjoy life and appreciate its wonder. Those who seek to stabilize the human population do so precisely because life is beautiful, but it is becomming inversely so with the proportion of a growing human population. We want life to be wonderful for all people and all living things, and this can't be accomplished while humans are sequestering all the resources for themselves. Your arguments are classic non sequitur fallacies.
ReplyDeletetsisageya, I enjoy our discussions. This recent dialogue has inspired me to write a post on the nature of good and evil. Thank you.
ReplyDelete"...you certainly take a lot of liberties with the rules of logic. First of all, one person's opinion on the state of the world does not reflect a concensus on the part of all people who would like to see the human population stabilized."
ReplyDeleteI wasn't forming a conSensus; Liberality's "why would anyone want to bring a child into this world" sentiments have been echoed by countless others before.
"Also, admiting [sic] that the world has some serious problems and that the vast majority of people who enter it today will be subjected to hardship does not imply that one does not enjoy life and appreciate its wonder."
Hardship and suffering are sometimes part of life. So are love and joy. It's literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say, "Don't have that child, or else (s)he might face hardship at some point."
"Those who seek to stabilize the human population do so precisely because life is beautiful, but it is becomming [sic] inversely so with the proportion of a growing human population. We want life to be wonderful for all people and all living things, and this can't be accomplished while humans are sequestering all the resources for themselves. Your arguments are classic non sequitur fallacies."
You want to ensure quality of life for some by saying "no" to life for others -- so there's no non sequitur in my argument. If you'd like a non sequitur, see your bringing up religion. One does not need to be religious to object to your having called human beings a "cancer." One can promote sharing of resources and conservation without going to such an extreme.
Killing Mother makes so much more sense,
ReplyDeletepopulation, already immense,
...and along with its size
...inequality will rise,
bringing crises, each very intense.
Now how many ways can we highlight,
the world that we live in is finite,
...and if we overshoot,
...the point may be moot,
preventing it requires some foresight.
I have mixed feelings about inflammatory language. It can tell the truth in a very memorable way, but it also tends to be polarizing. I just hope killing Mother's words - which she backs up with references - convince ten times more people than she alienates.
ReplyDeleteHumans are exceptional in one respect - in their ability to sequester all the resources for themselves. In nature, when a virus or bacterial infection spreads unchecked, it is called a disease. When an organism multiplies without restraint, it is referred to as a biological nuisance. When cells grow out of control, it is cancer. Within nature, people are a cancer upon the planet.
There's really nothing you can argue with here. killing Mother lays it out very nicely. If you don't like being called a cancer then stop acting like one.
After all, what happens when one species over-populates, like rabbits or rats or mosquitoes? They overrun the area, eat everything in sight, and cause disease. Some even build bombs and guns and wage war on each other, destroying life on earth for decades.
bmmg39, first of all I would like to appologise for my less than civil tone with you in my previous comment. I was a bit flustered, not by your comment, but by what seemed like a veiled threat from some fanatical right wing detractors. While I stand by my criticism of your fallacious comments, I could have done so without the initial ad hominem dig, and for that I appologise.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to my calling the human species a "cancer," I welcome your criticism, although my argument is not non sequitur as you suggest, since in no place do I insist that only religious people should be offended by my comments. The essay is specifically about the fundamentalist ideal that encourages population growth as a religious ideal but says nothing and does not comment on other ideals that might also support the concepts of human exceptionalism and population growth. Your non sequitur criticism is a red herring:)
Anyway, the discussion of the "cancer" remark is certainly an important one, and as Rhymer points out, perhaps a bit inflammatory, so I would like to clarify. My metaphor relating human beings to cancer was intended to be specifically a biological commentary and not a personal one.
My beloved pet dog Steve had bone cancer in his foot. As the cancer cells multiplied, they actually took over the bone, so that eventually, there was no more bone, only cancer. People are similar. We clear cut land and build strip malls, cut the tops off mountains for coal, drag nets across the ocean floor, scraping it clean. Do you see a pattern? When people move in, we tend to annhilate all the other organisms that inhabit that same space just like Steve's bone cancer. Hence my metaphor.
And for the record and by way of full disclosure, I have 3 adult children (positive population growth, I know) who I adore and who are the great joys of my life. They are all fantastic people. After the third (oops) child defied all my contraceptive efforts, I realized I had a fecundity problem and responsibly got my tubes tied. I don't think everyone should stop having children, but I think an ideology that embraces deliberate population expansion is misguided and not healthy for Planet Earth. The correlation between ecological detriment and human population growth is irrefutable.
And yes, I confess to being one of the world's worst spellers. Thank you for contributing to the conversation.
Rhymer, thanks again for another wonderful rhyme. I admire your talents. I also thank you for pointing out the "inflammatory" nature of the cancer comment. I am frankly surprised by the intense reaction it got. If we watch, we can learn something new about human nature every day (even our own).
ReplyDeleteTsisageya, I can tell you read my comment as I intended it. Others obviously read it differently. Fascinating.
ReplyDeletekilling Mother, I hope the bad weather in North Carolina didn't bother you too much. I've been reading about it and started worrying about you. I live in central Alabama and we got hit pretty hard but not as hard as North Carolina, I hear.
ReplyDeletetsisageya, you are so sweet to think about me. I am in the mountains, so we didn't get the tornadoes but still had some exciting weather with a few trees down. I hope all is well on your end too.
ReplyDeleteOh good, I'm so relieved. It wasn't bad at all in my immediate area but there was much damage and, sadly, some deaths a few miles up the road.
ReplyDelete"bmmg39, first of all I would like to appologise for my less than civil tone with you in my previous comment. I was a bit flustered, not by your comment, but by what seemed like a veiled threat from some fanatical right wing detractors. While I stand by my criticism of your fallacious comments, I could have done so without the initial ad hominem dig, and for that I appologise."
ReplyDeleteWell, okay, but can you clarify what, precisely, you found fallacious? Some folks want to try to ensure a more beautiful life for some by preventing others from existing. Where is the fallacy?
"And for the record and by way of full disclosure, I have 3 adult children (positive population growth, I know) who I adore and who are the great joys of my life. They are all fantastic people. After the third (oops) child defied all my contraceptive efforts, I realized I had a fecundity problem and responsibly got my tubes tied."
Okay...but how does your third "fantastic person" who was an "oops" feel about your having written that (s)he somehow defied all your contraceptive efforts? This is what I mean. It's easy to say the world would be less complicated were there fewer people in it, but it's a bit more personal when you're looking at the human being who was given a chance at life only because "the birth control failed."
"And yes, I confess to being one of the world's worst spellers. Thank you for contributing to the conversation."
I probably would have let it go were it not for the "taking liberties" remark. Ha!
On Wesley Smith's human exceptionalism:
ReplyDeletehttp://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/vol13/iss10/14/
mijnheer, wow! what a great piece. thanks for the link.
ReplyDeletebmmg39, your fallacy is in the generalizations you made and the non sequitur arguments I noted above.
ReplyDeleteIf you re-read my post you will notice that I am not proposing denying anyone or anything a right to exist. My objection is specifically with ideologies that promote positive human population growth and deny the impacts that this ideology is having on Planet Earth and all non-human organisms.
And by the way, my brilliant son is very much aware of the circumstances surrounding his birth, and he is not at all bothered by them.
Children are like all other living things. Even if you don't plan for them, it doesn't stop you from loving them unconditionally when they arrive. Conversely, if you don't have them, there are plenty of other organisms on the earth to share your love with. If the birth control hadn't failed, the possiblity that was our son would have been recycled into the universe to become another miraculous possiblity somewhere else. I don't quite understand your argument. Are you saying we shouldn't use birth control?
tsisageya, now it is my turn to be worried about you. The news from Alabama is terrible. I hope that you and your family made it through the night without incident.
ReplyDeleteGlad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. Another great book is The Arrogance of Humanism, David Ehrenfeld. Here's a quote:
ReplyDelete"The better parts of humanism are not in question here; when the inappropriate religious elements have been removed, humanism will become what it ought to be, a gentle and decent philosophy and a trustworthy guide to non-destructive human behavior. But before that happens we much come to terms with our irrational faith in our own limitless power, and with the reality that is the widespread failure, in their largest context, of our inventions and processes, especially those that aspire to environmental control."
Make an effort to locate some purchaser critiques in the product
ReplyDeleteor service just before you buy it to find out if there are actually frequent difficulties
linked with it.
Also visit my web blog :: next page
One particular common reward that accrues from these physical exercises may be the
ReplyDeleteavoidance of heart diseases and various forms of cancers,
way too.
Also visit my blog : dumbbells for sale