Experienced bloggers know that when posts are read in haste, the chances of the main message being misunderstood increase. I am sure most of you skim read posts. I do it when time or interest are lacking. Of course there is nothing wrong with “skimming” through posts. The problem comes in, however, when skimmers post replies based on their limited understanding of posts. They are more likely than careful readers to assume that bloggers said something they did not say.
Recently I posted an article on carbon footprinting and having babies. I got a few replies, which I am grateful for. But I am disappointed with those who, for one reason or another, misread or incorrectly interpreted my main message. I was accused of calling people who are concerned for the environment and the earth’s resources “tools of the devil”. If this were the case then I would be a tool of the devil because I recycle and occasionally take mass transit out of concern for the environment.
What I said in the blog post (see below) was that people who are concerned about the environment and resources to the point of positing limited reproduction through education and government action are doing the devil’s bidding. They are putting their eco-fanaticism ahead of the God-given command for humans to reproduce.
There are a lot of reasons, many of them personal, for couples to have or not have children. Government mandated zero population policies in the name of environmental and resource management should not be one of them.
China’s harsh and ungodly One Child policy is a classic example. As BYU political science professor Valerie Hudson pointed out, the decision among many Chinese families to have a boy through selective reproduction practices (typically through abortion of female fetuses) is creating a huge problem. She warned that by the year 2020, China will have 30 million surplus uneducated, unskilled, unemployed, and unmarried young males. Historically when such surpluses existed in China, totalitarian regimes have used the boys as soldiers in war. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24761-2004Jul2.html?referrer=emailarticlepg)
It is interesting that supposedly enlightened academics, writers, and government bureaucrats in the US are making similar arguments. Here is an example. An environmental writer for the SF Chronicle recently wrote the following about scientific research which implicates babies in carbon footprinting.
Thinking about zero population growth as something that can be obtained by empowering people, rather than forcibly sterilizing them, makes the issue more approachable. I'm glad the [carbon footprint] study reveals childbearing as an important environmental decision, but science will have to learn how to stop considering women and fertility to be interchangeable if we are to make any progress on the population issue. (Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=45122)
Another example of eco-fascism at its worse.
Recently I posted an article on carbon footprinting and having babies. I got a few replies, which I am grateful for. But I am disappointed with those who, for one reason or another, misread or incorrectly interpreted my main message. I was accused of calling people who are concerned for the environment and the earth’s resources “tools of the devil”. If this were the case then I would be a tool of the devil because I recycle and occasionally take mass transit out of concern for the environment.
What I said in the blog post (see below) was that people who are concerned about the environment and resources to the point of positing limited reproduction through education and government action are doing the devil’s bidding. They are putting their eco-fanaticism ahead of the God-given command for humans to reproduce.
There are a lot of reasons, many of them personal, for couples to have or not have children. Government mandated zero population policies in the name of environmental and resource management should not be one of them.
China’s harsh and ungodly One Child policy is a classic example. As BYU political science professor Valerie Hudson pointed out, the decision among many Chinese families to have a boy through selective reproduction practices (typically through abortion of female fetuses) is creating a huge problem. She warned that by the year 2020, China will have 30 million surplus uneducated, unskilled, unemployed, and unmarried young males. Historically when such surpluses existed in China, totalitarian regimes have used the boys as soldiers in war. (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24761-2004Jul2.html?referrer=emailarticlepg)
It is interesting that supposedly enlightened academics, writers, and government bureaucrats in the US are making similar arguments. Here is an example. An environmental writer for the SF Chronicle recently wrote the following about scientific research which implicates babies in carbon footprinting.
Thinking about zero population growth as something that can be obtained by empowering people, rather than forcibly sterilizing them, makes the issue more approachable. I'm glad the [carbon footprint] study reveals childbearing as an important environmental decision, but science will have to learn how to stop considering women and fertility to be interchangeable if we are to make any progress on the population issue. (Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=45122)
Another example of eco-fascism at its worse.
Continue reading at the original source →