Children 'bad for planet'

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bones_IV said:
It just shows that environmentalists and forced abortions are bosom buddies.
Click to expand...
This is a gross inaccuracy. I, and thousands of Christians with me, care passionately about the environment. What’s more, I believe God cares passionately about the environment - He gave us a beautiful gift, I firmly believe He wants us to care for it, and the ethical teachings of Leviticus support my view.

Concern, Christian Aid, Trocaire, MCC, all campaigning environmental organisations. All against abortion. Bones. You need to be more careful in the words you use.
bones_IV said:
The Palestinian god Moloch had pretty much the same idea about children. Modern Palestinians do too.
Click to expand...
I am really shocked by this attitude. I have Palestinian friends, and I have rarely witnessed a more child centred culture. Jesus was much closer to being Palestinian than Western European or American. I am so saddened to see such sweeping generalisations on a Christian website, and that no-one has thought to question it.
manualman said:
This is nothing new for Europe… And they wonder why their governments are all bankrupt.
Click to expand...
As a European I’m shocked again by this generalisation, and that no-one has, as yet, seen fit to contradict it (if I made such a comment about the US administration you’d be up in arms). I do not believe my government is bankrupt. I’m proud to be European, I’m proud to be Northern Irish, and I don’t appreciate sweeping statements being made about my government.

While I do not agree with the opening article, it seems to be discussing the issue of planning of population. I’m not sure that that, in itself, is an argument for abortion OR contraception. It seems it might be in support of family planning which, as far as I’m aware, in its natural form, is not against the Catholic Church. Families often make reasoned decisions about the number of children to have, examining if they have are in a position to provide and care for them as they deserve. This often includes a questioning of the resources available to them. So, is it a leap too far, if people were to look at the resources available to the planet? I’m not saying it’s necessary, but it is conceivable that this could be a consideration.

And, on a lighter note, one of my friends constantly comments on how people, once they have a baby, sell their environmentally responsible car, and buy an SUV. Babies. Such little things. Why do they need such HUGE cars?
 
SUV. Babies. Such little things. Why do they need such HUGE cars?
Click to expand...
for us who live up north, we need the extra clearance and all wheel drive they afford. plus, having the extra room helps fitting more people into a car. a baby seat is one seat. they may be smaller, but they take up just as much room. as long as you fill up an SUV with people, they are enviromentally friendly.

besides, SUV’s aren’t the only problem. what about the pick-up trucks? most people don’t use them for work. i’ve heard there are more pick-up trucks than SUV’s.

as for these wackos that worship cockroaches, why don’t they address this population problem by starting with themselves.
 
Dee_Dee_King said:
as for these wackos that worship cockroaches, why don’t they address this population problem by starting with themselves.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I don’t know anyone who worships cockroaches. If I did I might attempt to find an answer for you…
 
If you really want to call use “beef,” go crazy. (I do hope that’s not a veiled proposition that we childless folk be eaten!)
Click to expand...
Well, that depends on who’s doing the eating. I guess you gotta think in an eternal sense. As in, heaven, hell, and satan.

Also, it is to be interpreted in a very narrow context. Within the context of a come-back for those people who call parents “breeders”. If you are not one of those who criticisizes people who do excersize their right to procreate, then this analogy falls apart quickly.
Seriously, though, begetting and being eaten pretty much covers the usefulness of cattle (okay, there’s milking). One likes to think of human beings as having a bit more than that to contribute.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s the rub. Because of our eternal destiny, our mere exhistence is what counts most. Building skyscrapers, and sending rockets to the moon doesn’t glorify God anywhere near as much as one, tiny infant. Come the end of time, those skyscrapers will be dust, and the rockets will not move, but the souls of those babies will be rejoicing for all eternity.
I reject any use of the rude appellation “breeders,” but suspect it might have originated on the lips of some childless person who got tired of catching flak from child-friendly peers, and began to feel as if a human being’s worth is encapsulated in the ability to crank out offspring. That’s something of a cattlelike way to regard the human condition.
Click to expand...
I suspect it might have originated on the lips of some person who thought children were bad for the planet. Or someone who thought that having children reduced humans to something like cattle. Which is why I made my point. If you think that having children reduces humans to the level of cattle, then those who are the “breeders” are the ones that survive to the next season - all the rest are slaughtered.
 
Eddy, Where you from? What’s the per capita lifetime birth rate? What is the demographic spread between young working folks and older folks? How are those generous social programs going to work when there are half as many people paying in with taxes and twice as many taking out?

I dunno about YOUR locale, but the average for Europe is down around 1 kid per couple, per articles I’ve read lately. Yes, that IS generalizing. Generalizations and large scale averages sometimes tell you things. If those general stats are true, bankruptcy IS right around the corner.
 
I’m afraid I don’t know anyone who worships cockroaches. If I did I might attempt to find an answer for you…
Click to expand...
What they probably meant by worshipping cockroaches was a person who believes that animal life is just as sacred as human life. Or one who believes that human life is nothing more special than animal life, whatever way you want to slice it. Taken to the extreme that people must reduce their footprint on the Earth’s surface not for the sake of future generations, but for the benefit of other species.

That is where environmentalism turns ugly - when environmentalism is for the environment’s sake. And they admit that their argument is weak when they can’t explain to a starving person in Bangladesh that habitat should be spared for an endangered tiger and therefore should not be farmed. To the environmentalist the tiger’s habitat is more important than the Bangladeshan’s livelihood.

To the environmentalist, their right to “see” a tiger in the wild is greater than a Bangladeshan’s right to procreate. Therefore they try to concoct ways to spread artificial birth control to these areas.
 
Black_Jaque said:
Because of our eternal destiny, our mere exhistence is what counts most. Building skyscrapers, and sending rockets to the moon doesn’t glorify God anywhere near as much as one, tiny infant. Come the end of time, those skyscrapers will be dust, and the rockets will not move, but the souls of those babies will be rejoicing for all eternity.
Click to expand...
Viewed sub specie aeternitatis, all human projects and aspirations might look a little shabby. Nevertheless, I’m not prepared to say that human civilisation is beside the point, or has zero relevance to heavenly concerns. The Catholic Church needn’t operate out of the Vatican–perhaps it wouldn’t make any eternal difference if it operated out of a muddy field–but I’m not prepared to regard St. Peter’s cathedral and its square, Michelangelo’s buildings and sculptures, etc., as irrelevant to who we are as humans or to our aspirations towards God.
Black_Jaque said:
I suspect it might have originated on the lips of some person who thought children were bad for the planet. Or someone who thought that having children reduced humans to something like cattle. Which is why I made my point. If you think that having children reduces humans to the level of cattle, then those who are the “breeders” are the ones that survive to the next season - all the rest are slaughtered.
Click to expand...
Actually, further net research has led me to believe that the term began as a slang term among gays to refer to heterosexuals in general–with or without children. So it appears we’ve been tarred with the same brush (pace your earlier point about whether it should constitute “tarring”).
 
Viewed sub specie aeternitatis, all human projects and aspirations might look a little shabby. Nevertheless, I’m not prepared to say that human civilisation is beside the point, or has zero relevance to heavenly concerns. The Catholic Church needn’t operate out of the Vatican–perhaps it wouldn’t make any eternal difference if it operated out of a muddy field–but I’m not prepared to regard St. Peter’s cathedral and its square, Michelangelo’s buildings and sculptures, etc., as irrelevant to who we are as humans or to our aspirations towards God.
Click to expand...
I think you’ve got everything in propper perspective. But it’s when people begin looking down their noses at parents that shows they’ve got things upside down.

I don’t know what you mean by being tarred with the same brush. Not to mention the origins of the term coming from the homosexual movement only supports my assertion that it really isn’t a tarring. If the Church is correct the “breeders” in this narrow context will be saved and the “beef” will be slaughtered.
 
Black_Jaque said:
I don’t know what you mean by being tarred with the same brush. Not to mention the origins of the term coming from the homosexual movement only supports my assertion that it really isn’t a tarring…
Click to expand...
Sorry to be cryptic. Just meant that the term seems to have originated as an intended blanket fling against heterosexuals in general, and hence–assuming that you’re heterosexual–it’s aimed at both the likes of you (if you have children) and the likes of me (who doesn’t).
 
manualman said:
Eddy, Where you from? What’s the per capita lifetime birth rate? What is the demographic spread between young working folks and older folks? How are those generous social programs going to work when there are half as many people paying in with taxes and twice as many taking out?

I dunno about YOUR locale, but the average for Europe is down around 1 kid per couple, per articles I’ve read lately. Yes, that IS generalizing. Generalizations and large scale averages sometimes tell you things. If those general stats are true, bankruptcy IS right around the corner.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where the information you’ve been getting is coming from, but, in 2004, Ireland was 1.99, France 1.90, Norway 1.81, UK 1.74 and Catholic Italy 1.33 and Spain 1.32. Undoubtedly these are not replacement levels, but they’re not quite a rate of 1. There will inevitably be problems, but birth rates alone are not the only factor in considering financial sustainability. Firstly, there are high rates of migration (Europe is undergoing huge shifts currently) and in the short term at least, immigration from Eastern Europe into Western Europe is likely to have an impact on birth rates. Secondly, one of the natural impacts of a longer life span is that there will be more people around, and Europe is already overcrowded in many ways - so some see the changing birth rate as a way of balancing the population. Thirdly retirement ages will move upwards - but this is also a reflection of longer life expectancies, and it’s a small price to pay for the NHS. THirdly, pension plans are changing, which again will impact on overall economic sustainability. And finally there are real questions about whether the current economic situation SHOULD be sustained. UK, with its fast growing economy, also has fast growing rates of depression. Money does not make you happy, and less money may well be the impetus for people to reconsider what’s important. Having said that, the UK and Irish economies have never been doing better, thanks for asking! Frankly European governments do have their problems (the recent election in France is a particularly worrying development), but there’s much I enjoy about European politics. The US system is very different and has its strengths, but also its very definite weaknesses.
Black_Jaque said:
To the environmentalist, their right to “see” a tiger in the wild is greater than a Bangladeshan’s right to procreate. Therefore they try to concoct ways to spread artificial birth control to these areas.
Click to expand...
Ah, there you go again ‘to the environmentalist’. Big broad sweeping inaccurate generalisations. I reiterate. There are Christian environmentalists who say no such thing. You cannot lump everyone you dislike together as one great big group of ‘bad guys’ who are left wing, abortion supporting, pro contraception, pro gun control, gay, feminists! The world’s just a little bit more complex than that.

For some Christian environmentalists please see:
trocaire.org/wherewework/environment.php
christian-aid.org.uk/climatechange/index.htm
cafod.org.uk/about_cafod/what_we_do/environment
mcc.org/respub/occasional/13.html

Please think of all their work before you speak of environmentalists with contempt.

I do not agree with supporting animals over humans. That said, the state of the natural world is often an indicator of the health of the planet. If fish stocks are dying, that is not to humankind’s advantage. If destroying forests is impacting on climate, then we should protect the forests. Deforestation in parts of Africa directly causes erosion, which causes failed agriculture, which causes people to go hungry. We cannot think of humankind as operating in splendid isolation from the rest of the planet, nor can we regard nature as an unlimited reserve for us to raid at our will. The world is inter-related, hurt one part, and their will be knock on effects.
 
Eddy,

My most sincere appologies. It’s too easy to lump everyone under one label “environmentalist”. I do realize that there are some “environmentalists” who have not disconnected themselves with their Christian morality. I like to think of myself as one.

Just as feminism has it’s radical extremes so does environmentalism. It is that extreme environmentalism, where the environmental action has supplanted their Christian ideals, that I was aiming my comments at.
 
Black_Jaque said:
Eddy,

My most sincere appologies. It’s too easy to lump everyone under one label “environmentalist”. I do realize that there are some “environmentalists” who have not disconnected themselves with their Christian morality. I like to think of myself as one.

Just as feminism has it’s radical extremes so does environmentalism. It is that extreme environmentalism, where the environmental action has supplanted their Christian ideals, that I was aiming my comments at.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this. And apologies if I over-reacted. I have been getting increasingly frustrated by overgeneralisations and assumptions made about particular viewpoints around here, and you may have been the recipient of my accumulated wrath 😊 .
 
Labels do mean different things to different people. Environmentalist was a new label created by its adherents in the 1970s to differentiate themselves from a previous concerned generation that called itself ‘conservationists.’ The conservationists, IMO, had a MUCH greater sense of reality that man is part of nature and all human AND animal activities have an environmental impact. They sought to find a balance where natural resources were exploited in prudent ways in some places and other places were left unexploited in a manner that allowed the best of both to exist. There was not an artificial good nature / bad humans dichotomy like there is among ‘environmentalists.’

They created the label because of the difference, not me. If you aren’t a nature worshipping nut, then call yourself by the right label; conservationist.

I will have to look up where I got the numbers I quoted. Minor details can have a big impact. Are yours reflective of of how many kids the average couple has? If so, do they account for those who never marry? That’s a big factor too.
 
Eddy,

Not a problem. I guess it’s like what they say about smokers - the most obnoxious anti-smokers are the ex-smokers.

I come from a background of having pretty high concerns for the environment. And what makes me different from the anti-smoker analogy is that I’m not quite an EX-environmentalist. I guess I’ve just been tempered a bit.

In fact, what lead me back to the Church was probably the rediculous notion that abortion was good for the environment. Not that every environmentalist was pro-choice, but there are enough high-profile environmentalists who embrace abortion that caused me to have a long hard think about the whole movement.

That, and I remember as a result of that “think” I reasoned that what mattered in life is probably that which hasn’t changed in life. Since the dawn of the stone-age man has been getting married, having children, and raising them. That very simple and basic rhythm has been with man for his entire history. All the rest is just peripheral “noise”. I also learned through various social studies, and 12 step programs that parents have a tremendous influence on what kind of adult a child will grow up to be. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the most efficient way to solve the world’s problems is to improve the world’s parenting.

So it became my mission to be a better parent. And then I learned that the best parents are those who believe their children are GOOD for the world. And if that’s the case, how can I say I believe my children are GOOD for the world, yet in practice I send a message to them that if I had any more children, that would somehow be BAD for the world. Just seems hypocritical to me.

Now I look back and can see that as a result of our having lots of kids, our family probably leaves a smaller footprint on the earth than most of my ol’ tree-huggin’ peers who stopped at two, then went on to living lives of self-indulgence.
 
Manualman,

I’ve heard a similar explanation of terms but it was as compared with preservationists. As in conservationists vs. preservationists. The two both fit under the broader umbrella of environmentalists.
 
I don’t think so. The term ‘environmentalist’ didn’t exist before the 70’s. Its coining was simultaneous with the harmful good nature/bad humans philosophy. The term conservationist goes back to the turn of the century. The previous one!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top