“It is clear that having more than one child is just something that none of us . . . has a moral right to do.” So argues Sarah Conly, associate professor of philosophy at Bowdoin College, in a recent “Boston Globe” newspaper opinion.
She is responding to China lifting its one-child-per-couple policy. The nation now permits two. But this, Conly warns, is not a good thing.
According to the United Nations, the world will reach 9.7 billion population by 2050. Just four years ago we reached 7 billion. It will take only about 40 years to increase the population by almost 3 billion. For perspective, in 1800 the world population was only 1 billion.
Conly concludes: The sad truth is that trying to support this many people will bring about environmental disaster. We can see the damage that is already being done by our present population of “just” 7.3 billion. We all know about climate change with its droughts, storms, rising sea levels, and heat. But it’s also soil depletion, lack of fresh water, overfishing, species extinction, and overcrowding in cities.
We are using resources unsustainably, and despite the frequent cries for a cutback in the use of resources and release in greenhouse gases, nothing much has happened. Today we release more greenhouse gases than we did before the Kyoto accords. More people will mean more unsustainable resource use, worse climate change, and, eventually, wars over scarce goods or massive population displacement and migrations to places with remaining resources.
Conly admits there are societal, economic and moral objections to her “have-fewer-children” argument, which she answers in her article. I’ll make only two comments in response to her “moral objections” answer.
One, God created the earth and us; therefore, he provides what we need for human life to be sustained.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
And God blessed them.
And God said to them,
“Be fruitful and multiply
and fill the earth and subdue it . . . ”
And God said,
“Behold, I have given you every plant . . . and every tree . . .
You shall have them for food” (Genesis 1:27-29).
Though the first couple sinned (Genesis 3 and though later God added meat to the menu (Genesis 9:1,2), the essential narrative remains: God created male and female and provided food necessary for them to thrive. Logic demands that God who created humans and provided for their needs will continue to provide. Jesus refers to this when he teaches . . .
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things (food, drink, clothing) will be added to you
(Matthew 6:33).
This doesn’t mean we should misuse God’s resources. But it does mean that when calculating population in light of resources, we can and should remember throughout his Word God is shown as Divine Provider who can be trusted. Just two examples . . .
He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens
when they call (Psalm 147:9).
God . . . richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment (1 Timothy 6:17).
Two, God really exists; he isn’t a concept of our religious creation.
Answering the moral argument against one-child-per-couple, Conly writes . . .
Does the right to religious freedom mean we have a right to do whatever our religious doctrines dictate? Of course not. No one thinks that if a religion required, say, human sacrifice, those who follow it would be allowed to engage in ritual killing, no matter how sincere their belief. We want to accommodate religious practice whenever we can, even when that has some cost to social welfare. But again, if the cost is too great, we tell practitioners that in this case they need to amend their own ways. We’ve done this many times and will do it again.
Ms. Conly’s answer posits religious doctrines but not God. The question isn’t, “Does the right to religious freedom mean we have a right to do whatever our religious doctrines dictate?”. The question is, “Do we have the right/duty/freedom to do whatever God dictates?”. If God is just a concept of our religion, then such doctrine can be challenged for the common good. But if God really exists, then what he’s revealed cannot and must not be challenged for whatever we see as “the common good.” And the Bible clearly reveals that God exists—eternal, alive in the past, the present and the forever future.
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).
Simon Peter answered,
“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God,
who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).
This begs the question, “Which God?” Not enough space to answer that here. Suffice it to say that it seems foolish, if not arrogant, to merely dismiss evidence for God’s existence and speak only of “religions.” Inevitably that leads to God as a religious concept and that leads to the rejection of certain “religious beliefs” for “the common good”.
* * *
Too many children? There may be good economic or health or relational reasons why a couple should have only one child. But, as I see it from God’s Word, God exists as a living being outside ourselves and, because he created us, he is willing and able to always provide for us.
My advice? Have as many children as you believe you should. Love them. Care for them. Enjoy them. Lead them to know the living God who’s revealed himself in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t be afraid earth’s pantry will someday be empty.
And my God will meet all your needs
according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
To our God and Father
be glory for ever and ever. Amen (Philippians 4:19.20).
Recent Comments