Be Fruitful, But Not Too Fruitful

Well, this post was to be on separation of powers, until I read this article on declining birthrates.  So it's morphed into a separation of powers of a much different kind.

Lately, this has been a big topic for Mrs. More and I, and a small--but growing--group of friends.  You see, Mrs. More is with child, again--the "again" being the mandatory add-on imposed by numerous friends, family members, and near strangers.  By their response, you'd surmise that this was baby number 17 in the More household.  It's not; not quite.

We hear talk about convenience, college tuition, bedrooms, child-car seats, babysitters, the parents' desires, and--best of all--over population.  By way of background, the More family does not live in Mumbai, Karachi, Delhi, or Shanghai.  Ahh, the glories of pseudo-science and childbirth.  As the article I've noted mentions, birth rates in developed countries are actually going the wrong way.  This is such a significant social and economic problem that world leaders are now looking to PAY women to have more kids. 

Yet, "over population" is mentioned when we tell people about the new baby.  This is where "science"--it's not really science, it's an emotional response wrapped up in irrelevant statistics--has the potential to harm us.  Generally speaking, you do not make micro--family or personal--decisions based on macro--country or world--statistics.  Nor should you.  It would be the height of folly to make a critical decision--say, bringing an eternal soul into the world--on the notion that you'd have a negative impact on the whole world, or at least an impact to a 1/6,500,000,000th degree (which is the impact of one new child to our world population.)

While Samuelson's article explains the perils--economic primarily--of declining populations, it is not hard enough on what's happening in Western countries.  For example, in reality, on average, a family would need to have about 2.3 children, not 2.0 to actually sustain the population.  This is because of premature deaths, children that do not go on to have their own children, etc.  Thus, to simply stay even--and thus keep the average age of our population the same--you have to have more than just 2.0.  You'll note, that even the U.S. is not there.

Nor does Samuelson touch on the situation's moral perils.  I do not mean to imply an individual has some moral obligation to hit 2.3--that would be using the pseudo-science I loath in reverse.  Instead, I want to point out that the first commandment is:

God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it..."

Having children, in God's image, and filling the earth with that image, that's the first command He gave us--just after he blessed us.  I find it interesting, and disappointing, that our cultural has so trained us with "the Pursuit of Happiness" that we only see things from the perspective of convenience to mom and dad.  We don't ask the question:  "Why would God want us to have children?"  If anyone would like to comment below on this question, I'd be much obliged.  But, I'd note that the blessing of children offered at many religious weddings is being actively avoided or frowned upon by the recipients of the blessing!

I don't at all mean to downplay the serious health, emotional, or economic issues that people wrestle with in deciding not to have more children.  There certainly can be extremely valid reasons to hold off.  I appreciate anyone who at least wrestles with the concept at all.  I was heartened by the report that America is doing better--in part, they believe, to Americans' religious beliefs--than most Western countries.  But based on my interactions with folks, I think, as a people, we're still missing the point.  And this will have more than just economic consequences on our society, it will change our very view of life and why we exist.

Fruitfully,

Thomas More

P.S. Since this post went up, I found this article at First Things. 

[email protected]

Comments

[The Rabbit]

The ability to bring forth new life is no lite affair. It is wrought with theological, social, economic and personal meaning. As one thinks, from a young age, about children the mind trends toward the excitement of children and then the economic ramifications of 1,2 or even 3 young adults. Eventually we look around at what others, who have gone before us, have done. Our problem is we discount the wisdom of anyone who isn't current. We consider current circumstances and the prevailing thought birthed from these circumstance. I was in this camp for many years. It was only when I began to consider with equal weight ideas and testimony from folks who have been dismmissed, who are dead, or who have thoughts that go back more than thirty years that I was able to see with more clearity the significance and responsibility of children. Being a parent of 4 I have considered the responsibility of raising children to love God, the dynamic of having children grow up to become friends, the joy and hard work of being a parent and the capacity that our family has been given from God to do His work. To me these thoughts seem to outwiegh college tuition, nicer vacations and a bigger retirement.

[Nicodemus]

Ah, 'be fruitful and multiply'. But surely this doesn't mean multiplying indefinitely? After all, the point of multiplying in the Lord's command is to "fill the earth". However, once the earth is filled (a difficult term, I admit), then might one have a Sabbath rest? I fear I am of two minds on the whole issue. On the one hand, the entire anti-life reaction to "overpopulation" genuinely seems to see people as problems, consumers, and burdens on the earth. On the other hand, surely the effect of our being fruitful has been calamitous to the world God gave us. A simple drive down the 405 of LA will indicate what we do with the space, land, and resources we are given. It's not far from a industrial inferno. And thus the dilemma: we must neither deprive our descendents of the very basic 'right to exist' (by contraception, abortion, and population paranoia) nor treat our creation as we do presently by existing. It may be that we should live, but not live as we do....