David and Victoria Beckham were overjoyed by the birth last week of their fourth child, a baby girl they named Harper. "We all feel so blessed and the boys love their baby sister so much!!!" the former Spice Girl exulted to her vast following on Twitter. A few days later she posted a picture of her husband cradling his new daughter, with the tender comment: "Daddy's little girl!"
What heart wouldn't be warmed by the Beckhams' delight in their newborn?
The Observer's wouldn't.
In a remarkably churlish article on Sunday, Britain's influential left-leaning newspaper (The Observer is The Guardian's sister Sunday paper) pronounced Harper's parents "environmentally irresponsible" for choosing to bring her into the world. Headlined "Beckhams a 'bad example' for families," the piece was a sour blast at parents who raise good-sized families. "One or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish," Simon Ross, executive director of the Optimum Population Trust, told reporter Tracy McVeigh. "The Beckhams... are very bad role models with their large famil[y]."
McVeigh also quoted natural-history broadcaster David Attenborough, who recently "made a passionate speech about how the world's baby-making was damaging the planet." Fifty years ago there were 3 billion human beings, Attenborough had lamented. "Now there are almost 7 billion... and every one of them needing space. There cannot be more people on this Earth than can be fed."
Has there ever been a more persistent and popular superstition than the idea that having more kids is a bad thing, or that "overpopulation" causes hunger, misery, and hopelessness? In the 18th century, Thomas Malthus warned that human population growth must inevitably outstrip the food supply; to prevent mass starvation, he suggested, "we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction," such as encouraging the spread of disease among the poor. In the 20th century, Paul Ehrlich wrote bestsellers with titles like The Population Bomb, in which he described the surging number of people in the world as a "cancer" that would have to be excised through "many apparently brutal and heartless decisions." (His list included sterilization, abortion, and steep tax rates on families with children.)
Just last month, Thomas Friedman avowed in his New York Times column that "The Earth Is Full," and that "we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth's resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished."
Human beings, on the whole and over time, usually create more than they destroy.
For more than 200 years the population alarmists have been predicting the worst, and for more than 200 years their predictions have failed to come true. As the number of men, women, and children in the world has skyrocketed -- from fewer than 1 billion when Malthus lived to nearly 7 billion today -- so has the average person's standard of living. Poverty, disease, and hunger have not been eradicated, of course, and there are many people in dire need of help. But by and large human beings are living longer, healthier, cleaner, richer, better-educated, more productive, and more comfortable lives than ever before.
The Malthusians are wrong. When human beings proliferate, the result isn't less of everything to go around. The planet doesn't run out of food and fuel, minerals and metals. On the contrary, most resources have grown cheaper and more abundant over the past couple centuries -- in tandem with rising population.
The explanation is no mystery. Yes, more babies mean more mouths and therefore more consumption. But more babies also mean more minds and arms and spines -- and therefore more new ideas, more energy, more ingenuity, more initiative, more enterprise. "Human beings do not just consume, they also produce," writes George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan in a new book. "The world economy is not like a party where everyone splits a birthday cake; it is more like a potluck where everyone brings a dish."
It is a beautiful and uplifting insight, but the population misanthropes never seem to grasp it: Human beings, on the whole and over time, usually create more than they destroy. With more people tend to come more progress and more prosperity. That's why the birth of virtually any baby is cause to rejoice, and why parents who decide to raise another child bestow a gift on all of us. To be fruitful and multiply, says Genesis, is to be blessed. The parents of Harper Beckham know that, even if The Observer doesn't.
This article originally appeared in The Boston Globe.
(42) Anonymous, May 5, 2019 4:20 AM
equel
we also should realised the fact that people born & people die, too... we should stop playing God. david attenborough..and the rest of Us will die one too..
(41) Anonymous, December 25, 2017 10:48 AM
Quote on topic
A great quote, but I'm not sure if it's origin: "I've noticed that all of the people who are anti-abortion have been born"
(40) Andy, August 24, 2015 11:00 AM
maybe not PC but seems to me it depends who is having the kids
While I am all for following the commandment to be fruitful and multiply i don't think one should take it so literally to mean that all people should have as many kids as possible. If responsible parents with at least minimal financial resources not to be a burden on others who don't want to support their lifestyle then for sure go for a large family. There are exception that can turn out well but I believe children deserve two parent homes with parents who want to give their time and energy to raising children. Too many single moms with absent or even unknown dads seems to me very unhealthy. Fathers in name only with several kids by different women are in some areas way too common in the USA today for a healthy society. In short it seems to me seemingly responsible dedicated parents such as the Beckhams should not be faulted for their decision to have a large family.
(39) ariwaldman, August 23, 2015 3:14 PM
maybe they're right?
Perhaps they're right!! If a writer for the Observer or Guardian decides not bring a child into the world he actually may be improving the world by having one less person with the poor value system of his parents come into the world and spread his nonsense!!
(38) Serena, February 23, 2014 6:52 PM
One acre of land ...
You can feed far more than one person on one acre of land and have a diet that is nutritious and healthy. Especially when that land was figured out to be tillable land by the person above. It just takes some study and more importantly hard work to do it. You can feed a family from a city-sized lot. There is a family out in Los Angelos, CA that does it and makes a living off the excess. I loved this article! Of course, I have been blessed with 7 children and they have been and are being raised to contribute to this world, not be takers and wasters, so I would be kindly disposed toward what was written anyway.
(37) Stewdrtinoz, January 2, 2014 1:23 PM
Desirable population
I read that to maintain our existing society every couple should have 3 and 1 third children otherwise that society will be swallowed up and disappear. If this be true consider the groupings who exceed this number. Consider the ZPG concept in relation to the fastest growing religion in the 'Western World. I'll give you a clue and it isn't Jews or Chritians.
(36) Gershon, August 25, 2011 6:20 AM
A poplation limit DOES exist.
My atlas gives the land area of the earth as 148 million sq km. The ocean takes another 362 million. This means there are about 2.1 hectacres or 6 acres available per person. Some half of that land is useable, the other half, near vertical or frigid,or has some other defect. One must provide room for infrastructure such as roads, factories, and public areas. This is about 1 acre per person available for a home, food production, park land, military bases and such. 1 acre will feed 1 person adequately, provided that person eats simple foods. Double the population requires also additional infra structure, so with no changes in effiency there would be no land available for food. We can squeeze, of course, but I suggest we have passed the acceptable a few decades ago. One can look at the past and find astonishing improvements, but the 2.1 hectare limit requires finding another planet which is, at minimum, a long trip.from here.
Shoshana -Jerusalem, May 7, 2012 6:43 PM
Plenty of room
Don't worry. There is plenty of room, with all due respects to your atlas. Australia has vast amounts of land that can be populated,and so do many other countries. There are islands all over the place, the U..S also has plenty of land. Texas has gigantic ranches, hardly populated. ( Which reminds me of a joke I heard when I first came to Israel. This Texan is bragging to an Israeli about how much bigger Texas is compared to little Israel (who's the size of New Jersey). "Why, my ranch is so big" says the Texan, "that it takes 24 hours by train to get from one side to the other". "Don't feel bad" says the Israeli, "our trains are also slow". ) So put away your atlas and your calculator, re-read the above article and bring as many Jewish babies as you can into this world. "Be fruitful and multiply", as it says in the Torah..
(35) Frank Adam, August 8, 2011 3:58 PM
Don't damn ! Use your eyes and maths.
Compared to a lot of show business and professional sport and modelling is part of the entertainment sector - the Beckhams have been remarkably modest and proper. It is the gutter press that has far more to answer for. The population has doubled especially in the Third World it is largely because of tortuous and bigoted attitudes to education and health. Western population has levelled with secondary education for girls and population increase in the First World is mainly a matter of immigration. More important for the Beckams is their justified desire for a sister for their sons to balance the family and their children's elementary social education. Given the replacement rate is 2.2 children per woman between 15 and 45 and that the chances of having a string of the same gender is 2 to the power of the number of children, it is NOT excessive that Mr and Mrs B not being one of the half of the population who do have a child of each sex with two children (2x2) should have tried for a third (2x2x2) and succeeded with their fourth (1:16 are the chances for 4 girls or 4 boys). They are more than making up for the selfish abstainers from parenthood quite apart from the unblessed. Further they have the money and are not burdening their fellow citizens nearly as much as the feckless who have big families without being able to support them or encourage them to qualify for a job.
(34) Anonymous, August 2, 2011 11:22 PM
Rabbi Hanoch Teller told a story that I think is relevant here. A Chassidic Jew with a large family was approached by a German man. The German asked the Chassid how he could bring so many children into the world, and he cited the statistics about population growth with fewer resources and more. The Chassid answered him, "You've made good points, and I promise to consider them after I have six million children." I think Rabbi Teller's story says it all.
Hadassah, November 26, 2011 7:49 AM
Yes indeed he told the story very well.
(33) Jacque, July 31, 2011 8:00 PM
We bought that line; now we are paying for it.
Back in the 1960's, the idea of family planning was being advocated by at least a few. We caught on and now we are in trouble. The baby boomer generation is now retiring, and there are not enough people paying into the system to support them. We listened to those clowns; now we are paying for it. Now, I feel bad for the people of the baby boomer generation. They worked so hard to build the US, now they are getting punished instead. The clowns who put down this couple for having their fourth child should tape their mouths shut. (Nah, I'll let them have their say, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them!)
(32) Deborah S Wood, July 31, 2011 9:45 AM
Population
I am not prejudice but, what don't these people say something about othe Mexicans & blacks that have children just so they can get m ore money from the Government. At least the Beckham's can take care of their Family with their own money.& pay taxes to take care of many others.
(31) anon, July 29, 2011 9:18 PM
David and Victoria Beckham are nothing more than egomaniacs and only care about themselves Similarily, the media only care about their celebrity status and not their children We should pay attention to parents who actually love their children more than themselves, as the Beckhams clearly do not.
(30) chris, July 29, 2011 1:55 AM
Having Children
If u have the means to raise 10 children who is anyone to say other wise.People act like big families are the plague.Less than 100 years ago it was a common practice to have 3 or more children.My grandmother comes from a family of 13 and every single one have been contributing members of society.I think having smaller families is what is helping to add to the ruin of close family values.But it seems to me having larger families help the kids to be closer by learning to share and depend on the help of the older siblings this helps bring a closeness that is becoming non existent with in the average family of america.Most could never understand unless they are from a big family.Another huge benefit of having a lot of siblings is the younger ones never ever have to go thru the bullying that is rampant in american schools.It also teaches the children a sense of responsibility that can hardly be rivaled.By this I mean being responsible for your siblings well being a human life is the most valuable thing in life.But like I stated you can never understand this unless you have a big family to love and cherish.
(29) S. Ash, July 28, 2011 6:30 PM
Well done Jeff
Being a mother of 11 amazing kids, I don't feel in the slightest bit selfish - and I hope G-d will grant me many more kids. My kids have much to contribute to the world. Ultimately it is G-d who decides who will be rich/poor, hungry/satiated etc. If we, as parents, are living a mentally balanced life, there is no reason to feel selfish bringing kids into the world! Thank you Jeff for making me feel great with my accomplishment!
(28) Julia, July 28, 2011 5:28 PM
They are being irresponsible
The declination of species of animal life on this planet due to less wildlands speaks for itself. Less wildlands = more land for farming communities. Human beings on the whole are a selfish species and as long as people remain egocentric I don't see any hope for the survival of our planet. Oh, earth will go on, but with less diversity of flora/fauna.
(27) Andy, July 28, 2011 3:30 PM
In my opinion not one of the author's best articles. Maybe influenced by both the losses of the holocaust, and the bible's commandment to be fruitful and multiply
As others have noted overpopulation is a real challenge, and if most people had as many kids as possible it would likely be a disaster. That said I agree that the Observer was wrong in this case. If the Beckham's are responsible parents, and for certain they can afford a large family without forcing the taxpayers to support them, I say by all means it's unslefish of them to have as many children as they choose and are blessed with,both biological and others.
(26) Anonymous, July 28, 2011 2:35 PM
population
as my oldest son puts it " if people only had 1 child each we would cease to be a people the pyramid would be upside down, if every couple had 2 kids the world would stay the same, and for those who have more then 2 they make up the difference for those that never have any. the world would not be if it wasn't for having children because people die every day" said by my 6 year old! and the food shortage is due to government telling farmers what they can and can't grow not because there isn't enough land or enough seed but because we are told not to plant!
(25) Halli, July 27, 2011 4:02 PM
Cheaper does NOT mean "more abundant!"
While I somewhat agree that large families is somewhat selfish in adding to overpopulation, it's also not possible for a lot of families to have 3-4 kids even if they want to. I know my parents would have liked to have more than 2 children, but with their middle class incomes they felt they wouldn't be able to have the modest, middle class home that we did if they had had more children. I think that no one is "influenced" by wealthy families like the Beckhams to have large families like them because we know that most of us don't have the means to support large families without a large change in quality of life. I take issue with your phrase "good size families." So families with 1-2 children are not "good size families?" Excuse me? You're talking about larger vs. smaller families, not a "good size," which, even if you tried to use "good" as a euphemism for "larger," makes it sound like anything less is a "bad" size family. However, my main issue with this article is the blind, self-absorbed idea that "most resources have grown cheaper and more abundant over the past couple centuries" - wow, I hoped that that was a joke, and it wasn't! In today's economy, resources decline in market price EVEN AS THEY BECOME SCARCE due to more efficient extracting and processing methods, and often due to government subsidies! "Resources" have become more "abundant??" What?? Where, on your grocery store shelves? Those are not "resources," they are "goods," often produced very cheaply and irresponsibly due to government subsidies that, for example, pay farmers to grow below-food-grade corn that has no real market other than as an unnatural diet for beef cattle (causing the meat to be much less healthy than grass-fed beef) and as high fructose corn syrup, which is "abundant" in our "abundant" choices of processed "food" today that is then sold very cheaply. Have you seen pictures of or visited clear-cut rainforests that were used to make tissues and paper plates? Gone forever!
Anonymous, July 28, 2011 2:56 PM
Population control is selfish
Those who wish for population control are the ones that want YOU and their children out of the way so THEY can have more resources to use. The reason that there are poverty stricken populations is that the governments of these countries are taking the resources for themselves and their purposes to control the population. In one example, there are many others, the US helped Somolia with food drops and such. The food never got to the people because the government TOOK it for themselves to keep the people "in line". Hati is another example. To be truely un-biased do the research and see that it is true. But you and others who promote this idea won't do it. The worlds population can fit in the state of Texas with 1500 per each. We pay the farmers NOT to produce here, so the food that the US COULD produce is much more. The myth of population explosion has been debunked but those who like the idea keep promoting it. They want someone else who is "taking up space and resources" to make the ultimate sacrifices and not have children or just die to make room for THEM, so THEY and their families (if they have any) will have more. They do not want to make those same ultimate sacrifices to "save the planet" because they think YOU are less important/productive/necessary/intellegent/worthy to live etc. than they and those who think like them. Those are the selfish ones. Who are you to say who is worthy to get a chance at life. That one extra person who you think is detrimental to the planet may just be the one that discovers a cure for whatever disease you may get, or play a part in another great discovery that you benefit from later on. Elitest poplulation controlers are the ones who play russian roulette with the future of all people.
(24) Joe, July 27, 2011 3:21 PM
There are some ridiculous and dangerously false things here.
For the record, telling a new parent they are irresponsible for even having new child is indeed churlish. That said, this article went on to say one of the most stupid and false things I have seen in print in a while. The article says: " When human beings proliferate, the result isn't less of everything to go around. The planet doesn't run out of food and fuel, minerals and metals. On the contrary, most resources have grown cheaper and more abundant over the past couple centuries -- in tandem with rising population." He also argues that humans live longer and have more as the population increases. This is balderdash. We live on a finite planet. There is only so much food that the planet can grow. There is an upper limit. There is only so much land and so much food that any square meter of it can produce - because there are only so many watts per meter that come in from the sun. There is only so much oil. With proliferation, and growth of demand the price of that finite resource has gone up. Peak oil is a real thing. The concept however is not limited to oil. It is true of anything that people want that we don't have an infinite amount of. Energy is conserved. Matter does not spontaneously generate. He confuse better production techniques allowing cheaper goods to get to people *in the west.* with a fantasy notion that everyone on the whole planet can consume as much as Americans. It would take the resources of six more planets for every person on Earth to consume as much as America does. There are starving people around the globe. How blind this writer is to their plight! Food got cheaper in Africa or Asia did it? Environments are delicately balanced things. Human beings are not above the laws of physics. If we don't get enough food we die. On the other side, available food is shrinking from pollution and climate change. This writer lives in a dangerous physically impossible dream.
(23) sara, July 27, 2011 1:57 AM
there's a diffrence
between a family that can physically & emotionally give their children everything s/he needs to grow into a contributing person is society & someone who is unable to provide those things, say a women out of wedlock, having kid after kid & living off of welfare.
(22) Anonymous, July 26, 2011 4:45 AM
over population
If these reporters are so worried about over populating the world, they should be talking to the Muslims, who are encouraged to have children, to dominate the world by population. But it is politically incorrect to tell a Muslim that they are doing anything wrong, yet we are told to 'tolerate' them. What about tolerating Christians in the US? Christianity is bashed all the time, and yet it is acceptable, even in the US. I do not understand that.
Nia, July 26, 2011 3:32 PM
You are praactically biased.
(21) Tammy, July 25, 2011 8:06 PM
Beckhams 4th child
The reason people in other countries are starving is because of the oppressive governments in control over those countries. Large cities are populated by millions while there is plenty of land to be cultivated that goes untouched. Give a person a fish and you will feed them with a meal. Teach a person to fish and you will feed them for life. If you have ever driven across America or taken a train or bus, all you see is land, land, land. It is either being bought up by our government or by foreign investors. And now it is getting to the point where you have to have permission to grow food on your own land or raise animals. The average person is not to blame for any of these things. The whole population explosion is nothing but a sham. A person would have to be blind in order to not see this.
(20) Esther, July 25, 2011 7:30 PM
Almost everyone's world
@Marlene Edelstein The article also speaks about quality of life: it did improve since the 18th century. This does not mean that there is no more misery, no more starvation. Billions or millions, I assume there are still going to be poor populations unless the occidental world becomes less selfish. It is not a matter of ressources anymore, but of generosity.
(19) Anonymous, July 25, 2011 6:47 PM
HaShem said ... be fruitful and multiply. That should give us a hint that if that is the order then the earth will be capable of supporting whatever number. A child, any child is a blessing and there are many couples out there like my husband and I that do not have any children and thoroughly enjoy and celebrate the birth of another human being, especially another Jew. The resources are there, the ingenuity is there, the food is there... need better distribution processes but trying to curtail the size of a family is nobody's business.
(18) Ellen Lovinger Eller, July 25, 2011 5:38 PM
Limited resources
Creative minds will never be free to create if they have no food. There is limited arable land on this planet, increasing pollution of air, water and soil, and unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Add in the greed of corporate interests that try to "own" seeds so that ordinary people can't grow their own food; buy water rights so that ordinary people have no access to clean supplies; and make medical care so expensive ordinary people cannot afford lifesaving advances, and it's clear we've reached the limit of what this world can handle. It's fair for each of us to replace ourselves; it's thoughtless and greedy for people of all economic strata to continue to have large families.
(17) Jan, July 25, 2011 5:00 PM
It'll all work out in the End
It was mentioned in a lecture by Rabbi Mendel (or Shimon?) Kessin that the population is leaping because HaShem is bringing down all the souls of those who perseuted Israel over the millenia for their final Judgement. Others have predicted that perhaps only 20% will survive this. So the "humanists" just need to hang on for a bit to be happy once again; that is, if they make the cut.
(16) Marlene Josephs, July 25, 2011 4:32 PM
Here's another take not mentioned as yet...
Although I agree with several sentiments about having more than two children, I thought of an argument against those who say that there are too many people starving, etc. Those people in third world countries aren't starving because the rest of us don't care...they are starving because they have evil people who are in command who steal the monies, food stuffs, clothing, medical supplies and assistance that the more wealthy countries send for the people. What the world needs more than anything is JUSTICE...and justice is precisely what Torah Judaism has tried to teach the rest of the nations!!! So by good people continuing to procreate the world with their caring offspring, perhaps we can finally achieve "tikkun olam" and repair our broken world.
(15) IrisB, July 25, 2011 3:04 PM
Leave the Beckhams alone
The Beckhams are not asking for a hand out to raise their children, like MANY large families do. After having 3 sons, I can understand their desire to "try again" for a daughter. Personally, if I had 3 daughters, I would stop, knowing full well that my family was already perfect and there would be no need to tamper with perfection.
(14) Miriam, July 25, 2011 10:10 AM
NOT a horse or a cow
My mom was expecting "number four" when I was 12 years old. A classmate said, "That's like a horse or a cow!". I was enraged. We adored our new sister. Today, as a Torah observant mother of ten, I see what gifts I merited to give the world! Ten people who each give ten percent of their earnings to the poor! Ten people who open their doors to guests. Ten people who understand they are here to improve the world. I thank G-d for the priviledge, and to the rest of humanity, I say, You are very welcome!
(13) Grantman, July 24, 2011 10:11 PM
Jack, sorry...
...you're wrong. The US has more forest today than at the turn of the 19th-20th century. I don't know the stats for the country as a whole, but the state of Connecticut has over three times the amount of forest as it did 100 years ago.
Jack, July 26, 2011 6:13 PM
Grantman: No, I'M sorry
I'm quite aware that New England is more forested today than 100 years ago. You speak of Connecticut. OK: From 1988 to 2010, the world's most important "lung," the Amazon rainforest, has lost on average an area of forest just about equal to the entire state of Connecticut EVERY YEAR from 1988 to 2010, with no end in sight. (See http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html.) I bet every pro-growth commenter here is also a global warming skeptic or denier. THEY know better than all but a handful of the world's top climate experts...the handful being those funded by the oil industry and a few religious scientists, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. Peoples with infinitely smaller industrial capacities than ours have produced environmental catastrophes in the past. Easter Island is a fascinating example--of religion over reason, incidentally. You know why so much of Greece is so rocky and bare? Ancient overgrazing. The whole Middle and North Africa were much greener as recently as biblical times. The Sahara Desert may be largely man-made. Not that this is by any means about forests, oxygen and greenhouse gases only. Whoever thinks overpopulation does not make people value human life less is kidding himself or herself. At least some of you are honest enough to admit you don't want EVERYONE having large families--just...well, people like US (Western, European, white, Jewish, whatever...). For the record, the West merely had ITS pop. explosion eariler: Europe went from 100 million to 400 million in the 19th century; the 20th century was the Third World's turn. Some of you are only worried by Muslim pop. growth. I know: Let's all try to outbreed each other! We've gone in 1 century from 1 billion to 7 billion globally. Why not 70 billion? 700 billion? God will provide, right?
(12) Annie, July 24, 2011 8:18 PM
I agree with Shoshana & Aenigma et al
The Beckhams could afford to have 40 children if they wanted; if they have two more, they are having my two as well, Aenigma. And they could have two more for our neighbour & two more for my friend N... The Observer is pathetic. It's none of their business or anyone else's. What an extraordinary thing that they couldn't find something better to write about. Fancy showing that you are so small-minded for the whole world to read. I don't understand it. If celebrities adopt, they are vilified, if they have their own, ditto. The Observer should be looking for real news. If the Beckhams decide to adopt-pick me !
(11) Marlene R. Edelstein, July 24, 2011 7:05 PM
whose world?
You say that humans are living longer, richer, more comfortable lives - I ask, which humans? Many in Europe, America and Australia, maybe, but what about the rest of the world? We privileged ones consume recklessly whilst millions starve. And even in our affluent societies many children suffer abuse and deprivation. I wish we could plan for quality of life rather than quantities of lives.
Dina Neuman, July 26, 2011 2:42 AM
Actually, Not Really.
Hard as it might be to believe, statistically even developing countries are doing better than ever. Don't compare them to developed countries; compare them to the way they used to be. Child mortality is down. The amount of people who suffer from malnutrition is down. Read some real books and papers; don't just submit to the fear that the evening news sells.
(10) Michy, July 24, 2011 6:49 PM
Have you ever left the comfort of the US?
The population IS growing too large. It’s amazing to even dispute this. You write, "human beings are living longer, healthier, cleaner, richer ... more comfortable lives than ever before." Have you ever left the United States? Maybe if one lives in rural America they don’t see it, but for anyone who has traveled overseas, the results are obvious. Wars are fought over scarce resources and people starve when there isn’t enough food. What’s wrong with saying perhaps people shouldn’t have many children if they can’t feed and care for them? One must take responsibility for one’s actions.
Anonymous, July 26, 2011 12:44 AM
boy are you wrong
You said "people starve where there isn't enough food". That is absolutely UNTRUE. people starve when presidents and rulers take everything for themselves, and leave millions homeless and starving. There is plenty of food to go around, as there is plenty of space to build for growing populations. Look how many wars are going on in this world, and these arrogant selfish "rulers" don't allow the U.N. to bring in truckloads of food. People who can bring up children should have them. it's nobody's business how many they have.
(9) Anonymous, July 24, 2011 6:45 PM
nail in the coffin
so follow this equation: if all the educated and peace seeking people reproduce at a shrinking rate radical Muslims and others who represent the antithesis of what Americans believe to be good, are reproducing at astronomical rates = what does the world look like for the few American grandchildren on planet earth in 100 years. who is being selfish and socially irresponsible? perhaps it is a society who for their own hedonistic reasons refuse to populate the planet with moral and educated people, at the expense of the very existence of american (western) society and ideals. in the broad scope of things, this tactic of blaming responsible people as being irresponsible is the nail in the coffin for free society as we know it. ps, another math equation - per capita, who uses more of the earth's resources? the family of 4 or the family of 8? split one minivan and one AC unit into 8. that uses less energy than splitting a subaru into 4 and the same AC unit into 4.
(8) Shoshana, July 24, 2011 6:16 PM
For me, onechild would have been enough, but I wiah ony good for people like the Beckhams, and most Orthodox Jews:People who who can afford to have many children, and are capable of caringfor them. I don't have patience for Nadia Suleman or mothers on welfare who have a new baby every year.
(7) Carol, July 24, 2011 6:05 PM
you are wrong.
You write that "human beings are living longer, healthier, cleaner, richer ... more comfortable lives than ever before" but AT WHOSE EXPENSE? At the expense of future generations. You are selfish to congratulate yourselves for "getting away" with it now by stealing from our own posterity.
(6) Ariel Weisz, July 24, 2011 6:03 PM
Leftists, despite their claims, see humans as liabilities
Mr. Jacoby hit the nail on the the head when he said that humans don't just consume, but they also produce. In leftist political ideology, the creative and individualistic aspect of humans are suppressed and so, beyond such utilitarian uses such as laborers and voters, humans are liabilities. Conversely, in a free society- along the lines of the right, libertarian, Randian- PEOPLE don't lay claims upon each other, thereby are free (or, if lazy, forced by necessity ) to produce and history has shown the amazing advances that come about from so many producers. As well, I offer that a belief in a beneficient Creator lends itself to the belief and knowledge of the greatness of (hu)mankind, while specifically left-wing atheism disavows mankind's greatness and leaves us with no justification for our existence.
(5) Jack, July 24, 2011 5:35 PM
Jeff Jacoby is so wrong.
The "people don't just consume, they produce" argument is ridiculous: it ignores WHAT we consume and WHAT we produce. We are not PRODUCING oxygen-generating, CO2-absorbing forests, nor unspoiled natural areas and wildlife habitats, nor fresh water resources. We are not PRODUCING zones of peace and quiet and privacy. Here's a dirty little secret: Many people today are more saddened by hearing of the death of a rare tiger somewhere than by a disaster claiming 100 human lives on the other side of the world. But it goes beyond indifference: Think of how a driver stuck in an endless freeway jam feels about HIS fellow human beings. That, in microcosm, is how people have begun to feel about a world in which the human population, after taking a million years to reach the 1 billion mark, has risen to 7 billion in a single century. "Be fruitful and multiply" is just one more example of ancient religious values that are totally inappropriate in the modern world; besides, that injunction was not addressed to humanity as a whole, was it? Religious Jews must PRETEND that it was, because even they dare not say out loud, "Jews, have more children! The rest of you, have fewer!" Ask yourselves, my fellow Jews--particularly Mr. Jacoby and readers who agree with him--how gladdened your hearts really are by the high birthrates among Arabs and Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. In know mine isn't...
Rachel, July 24, 2011 7:38 PM
EVERY child gladdens the heart
The command was indeed addressed to humanity as a whole (and to the animal kingdom). The problem is not more children, it's ignorant and misguided parents who teach their children to hate.
(4) Aenigma, July 24, 2011 5:30 PM
the Beckhams have just 4 children and they love them. what's more, they'll never starve or lack anything. people should point out Suleman with her 14 kids that she can't take care of. btw the Beckhams make an average for me since I'm infertile...
(3) Stacey, July 24, 2011 3:44 PM
children
God allows children to be born for His reasons. We bring them into the world because He allowed the miracle of conception to take place. Those who abort and kill children are going against a plan God had for those children. Let God do His work through all of us.
(2) EdwinS, July 24, 2011 3:40 PM
Control freaks
The arrogant people who think that we can create the perfect human and the perfect society see growing populations as compromising the agenda. They know that they know what's best - so why dont all you fools follow their instructions?
(1) Emily Arnstrong, July 24, 2011 1:54 PM
An UN-aborted child
My grandson is soon to become the father of a child with confirmed Spina Bifeda. The tests show very possible major problems with the baby and they can't wait to have her. Love for the unborn is a Blessed thing with God . No matter how many the Becham's have it is a blessed thing and God loves them for it.
Aenigma, July 24, 2011 5:24 PM
so glad
thank G-d for people who can and WANT love their imperfect children needing much care.
Chana, July 28, 2011 12:18 PM
People With Spina Bifida Can Have Good Lives
Especially when they have loving, accepting families. But then, isn't that true about "normal" people as well? Emily, with a great-grandmother like you, the kid has every right to be optimistic!