Engber's piece "Global Swarming", which mildly suggests population control as a key environmental policy, reads more like the work of fellow Slate contributor Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchen's writes often writes with an imperial sense of ethics but a total absence of charitable feeling; Engber's piece repeats this mistake by allowing eco-logic to eclipse deep, human meaning.

If the green movement is, at heart, nothing more than a sheerly conservationist piety, a desire to protect innocent nature at the expense of the best of human value, then it has already lost the fight. The joys of the family, to my mind, ought to be enlisted as a powerful tool for the fight for sustainable ecology.

To suggest that one ought to worry about the eco-ethics of one's progeny is to admit to the discussion an ugly and joyless consideration. Engber writes: It's also naive to assume our children will embrace our values just because we want them to; for all our preaching, we might end up with a generation of rebellious, gas-guzzling teenagers. To be asked to stand upon the brink of parenthood (which is rapidly declining in Europe and elite America already) and calculate the carbon emissions of one's progeny reveals a coldness at the core of the war on global warming.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is not that it is illogical, but that it is merely logical. Such thinking cuts the heart out of any powerful movement for change by replacing deep, human value with consequentialist calculations.

Suggesting that the best way to protect mother earth is to refrain from becoming a mother (or at least to refrain from increasing one's flock of children), then one wonders why exactly we are working to protect the planet?

A desire for a world without humanity seems to carry with it a marked disdain for human life, and human worth. If humans are really the excrescence at the end of an evolutionary digestive tract, then reducing our numbers makes sense. Perhaps the planet is better off without us. But undercutting human value then calls into question our own responsibility for the planet. Are we then moral agents with a unique role, or something else, a poor thing the world would be better off without? And if so, what moral role to we play in protecting the planet?

The traditional Christian virtue of stewardship (woefully absent in much evangelicalism), represents a more full-bodied approach to nature/creation, as humans are not merely to absent themselves from interference, but carefully interweave themselves into creation's ecology.

The goal of "creation stewardship" is to live in harmony with creation, and if this is possible, multiply voices for this harmony. The value of creation possesses intrinsically calls us to protect it, but this does not over-ride, but fits together with, the value of humans as responsible actors in the world, with a unique role to play. That procreation is not only a right, but also a joy, as well as a strong motivation for ecological care, follows from a sense of divine purpose.

If the green movement wants to motivate humans to eco-action, then it will need to enlist our most meaningful human roles, not fight against them.

( <link> )

I appreciate your stirring and heartfelt rebuttal to Engber's piece, but it misses one key point. While the book Engber references, "The World Without Us" may (or may not)suggest that we owe it to the world to depopulate completely, the author of the article never implies such a thing. Rather, he argues that we must reduce our population to save the earth, which has to be our ultimate goal for the sake of humanity. We must save the environment not for the earth's sake, but for our own.

I think you're right that "if the green movement wants to motivate humans to eco-action, then it will need to enlist our most meaningful human roles," but why does that mean we need to keep having more and more children? Procreation is indeed a right and a joy, but that doesn't mean it can be practiced immoderately without serious consequences.

Whether or not we admit it to ourselves, the earth cannot support an infinite number of people, and our global population growth is out of control. There are issues beyond global warming (like a finite food supply that will someday soon be outstripped by population if we do nothing to curb growth) to be considered. It may be counterintuitive but it's really not that complicated: if we want to save the human race, we need to control its growth.

Regardless whether one agrees with "The World Without Us" or not, it's unmistakably written for the choir. Birthrates in Westernized nations--the only places where the book will be read and the only places doing anything to protect the environment--have been falling for generations. Asking people to do what they are already doing is about as pointless an activity as there is. And it's hard to see the logic in the the idea that those trying to save the planet should stop reproducing, thus handing the world over to those who don't care.

I'm inclined to agree with "Sundown" the poster below, that birthrates aren't really the problem. Wealthy, Western nations have been steadily declining in numbers. (In Europe, this problem is very serious). As Westerners come to enjoy their independence more and more, little bundles of joy become more and more cumbersome. (My wife and I haven't been out to see a movie together more than twice since our second child was born, which is inconvenient). When population begins to become a serious problem because of starvation, common sense dictates cutting back on the kids, but until then I can hardly think of a compelling reason to restrict anyone's right to "be fruitful and multiply". One wants to do rightly by the earth, but even assuming a clear danger from global warming, the value of human life should stand as a constant. To jettison the right to have kids (even an large number) before there is a clear threat to humanity is, to my mind, a terrible compromise.

Heh....

Exactly where is it stated that anyone has a "right" to have kids? Just because one (or two if you will) has the ability to mindlessly fornicate, that action doesn't give them a "right" to do anything.

Hey Screaming Chicken, are you a member of the Chinese government? If not, you should check it out. You'd fit right in.

How dire must the situation be to meet the threshold of posing "a clear threat to humanity"? If the global population continues to grow at projected rates, and barring any unexpected, precipitous increase in the efficiency of agricultural output (which, believe me, I pray for), there will not be enough food to adequately nourish the people of the earth in a matter of a few years. We're not just talking about the problems with food distribution which currently leave billions hungry or starving, but rather a genuine shortage of food. That's leaving global warming entirely out of the equation. Many scientists also predict that climate change poses a real threat to the food supply, and that our estimates for future global food production have been overly optimistic. If that doesn't make you think twice about global population control, I don't know what will.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the notion that the solution to the population problem is for Americans to have fewer kids, but to argue that the burgeoning global population isn't a big enough problem or an imminent enough threat to warrant sacrificing one's "right" to have as many kids as one damn well pleases is incredibly shortsighted. The population problem is most certainly that big of a threat. I just wish such a relatively small step as Americans choosing to have smaller families would be enough to solve the problem.

I've bought and read this book....and can tell you what it does. It projects a picture of the earth once all humans 'disappear miraculously' -- and then ends with saying a great deal of this 'idyllic' world could be achieved if, just for a couple of gens families just had one biological kid each (it sets no limits on how many you could adopt). That's pretty much what it would take to get world population back to the 1900 levels, before the 'population growth' took off exponentially.

Have no idea why that concept enrages people so much. Unless, of course, by 'children' people say they only want 'biological' children and would be incapable of loving an adopted child (personally, I have concerns about whether such folks are qualified to become bio parents either -- unfortunately, there's no 'parental fitness' test before someone starts having biological children).

In the two centuries since Mathus's day, pessimistic prognosticators have been predicting the demise of civilization. Somehow we've managed to avoid starving to death over those two hundred years, even without being forced to limit our procreation, and still we have these arguments from the greeniacs that humanity is on its last legs.

Robert Frost said "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel." Here we see the final stage of that truth: the author of this piece will not even take humanity's side against extinction. The sacrament of reducing carbon emissions has been elevated so high that nothing, not the biological impulse shared by all creatures, not people's innate yearning for a family, not even God's first commandment to mankind ("Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it") can stand in its way.

It's become commonplace to call the mania for carbon-reduction a religion, but at its extreme it is really more akin to a suicide cult. Most religions profess to love their adherents; not this one. Those who bend the knee to environmentalism are constantly told that everything they do harms that which is most sacred: the Earth. Here, in this book, even existence itself is deemed a sin.

People talk a lot about Catholic guilt, but at least Catholicism's original sin can be washed away. At least, when our sins are condemned, Catholics are told that there is a better way to live, a better example to follow. Greens have no such solace, no chance for forgiveness, no example to emulate. Carbon credits are green indulgences, but they only delay the punishment. No, the logical result of this most self-hating of cults is the embrace of that which repels all animals and all thinking men and women: death itself.

At least there's the chance of a green burial.

I agree with you completely that the only hope for the planet and for the survival of other species on the planet is a drastic reduction in the human population. The problem is convincing the developing world of this, since this is where most of the population increase is taking place. I know that some westerners have a heartless, callous attitude towards other species, but it seems to be even worse in China and other eastern countries. For example, the educated advanced Japanese, don't seem to care that they are killing all the whales in the ocean.

Thanks to "Silent Cal" for saying much more clearly what I was trying to express, which is my disappointment at the implicit nihilism at the heart of Engber's article, as well as some of the replies in the Fray.

The desire to protect the integrity of ecosystems is laudable - but it cannot proceed without a strong sense of human worth and human responsibility - which is exactly what "population control" suggests. Global warming (the real focus of the article, not overpopulation), is a genuine worry.

But even more worrisome is the ease with which some critics move to suggest that we cut down on kids. Pace Engber: "Policies that promote family planning—in the United States or elsewhere—might well be more efficient than other means to reduce CO2 emissions, like a Kyoto-inspired carbon tax." I'm sure this would be more efficient. Just as a more efficient way to stop littering might be to scourge litterers with a whip instead of fining them.

But ethical decision making does not end with practical considerations.

In fact, pushed too far, a purely utilitarian framework for ethics undercuts the importance of ethics. Perhaps it may decrease global warming to refrain from having children.

But, one may well ask, why should I bother? Since the benefit of environmentalism does not accrue to me, it does not increase my own well-being, except as a surplus of positive moral meaning. But why should I value my own moral standing above, say the convenience and enjoyment of lazy and wasteful living? Recycling is a hassle and SUV's are fun to drive.

Thus a high value on human virtue, and human obligation, is necessary to encourage people to be eco-conscious. And I do not think that blithe advocation of population control does anything to bolster our sense of human importance.

Thus, my bumper sticker summary: "No ecology without a high anthropology."

*** Procreation is not only a human right but a great human joy, perhaps the most meaningful experience our biology can deliver, and thus it is for good reason that people are protective of this right.

(One key issue in this argument is whether or not people possess rights inherently, or only are "granted" rights by societal frameworks. My view is that rights are 'recognized', in the same way that other objective attributes are, and thus, are not revokable. Other commentators here seem to believe that rights are conditional on circumstance).

"But even more worrisome is the ease with which some critics move to suggest that we cut down on kids. Pace Engber: "Policies that promote family planning—in the United States or elsewhere—might well be more efficient than other means to reduce CO2 emissions, like a Kyoto-inspired carbon tax." I'm sure this would be more efficient. Just as a more efficient way to stop littering might be to scourge litterers with a whip instead of fining them.

But ethical decision making does not end with practical considerations."

I think you may be overstating the case a little bit. There are so many factors involved with having children; it is truly a personal choice, and generalizing it to a larger population almost always seems to fail. I don't think the author is giving an imperative, such as, "Have only one child." Rather, he is making the argument that having only one child is better for the Earth than having two or more. Whether this plays into your decision is up to you! He is merely stating a fact that is so unpleasant that many have chosen to ignore it altogether.

" Procreation is not only a human right but a great human joy, perhaps the most meaningful experience our biology can deliver, and thus it is for good reason that people are protective of this right."

perhaps you feel this way, but maybe everyone else doesn't. perhaps you should feel this way, perhaps you shouldn't. regardless, the only one here who has pushed this to the extreme of having no children is you. i dont see what is so heinous about the idea that you don't have to have 15 children to feel fulfilled in this world. and maybe if you do feel that way, you're being a bit selfish and unrealistic about the impact it has on the world.

that being said, i wouldn't presume to tell someone what to do or not do with their own family. i would suggest, cajole, convince perhaps. but the article was talking about voluntary reduction, not chinese like governmental controls. really i think the book and this article are more "think" pieces in the sense that it's much more about getting a dialogue going than actually comeing up with absolutes for solutions.

one last thing: animals in nature tend to adjust their breeding based on the resources that they have available. if there's a drought one year, the mother may naturally produce less of a litter than in times of plenty. unfortunately, humans have gone a long way from using their instinct. but when instinct fails, we still have intellect. i suggest that way too few people use either one. it makes no sense for people to have more children than they can afford or spend time raising. family planning is actually a very natural thing. so what's wrong with discussing it?

Well put, Deduction. Especially the last paragraph.

There are other, uniquely human, controls to population growth. Chief among these is human aggression which has taken ever more deadly and virulent forms over the course of human history.

I have little doubt that humanity will ultimately control its growth through war and conflict. If not, one can always rely on the other biological and geological forces at work on earth to arrest the cancerous growth of one species at the expense of all other life-forms.