More and more, we are hearing from people who might best be described as anti-birthers. Their claims have nothing to do with long- versus short-form Hawaiian birth certificates. Instead, they advance a simple proposition: that the birth of each additional American child is a kind of calamity for the environment.You know when I see a WSJ op-ed titled American Babies Are Ruining Everything that I am going to stop and read it.
It is brief and I encourage you reading it, especially since I'm going to give a spoiler. I'll wait ...
Essentially, this is a summary of the creeping attitude we all know too well these days, especially if one is pro-life. Babies hurt the environment and make life harder for the rest of us so they are not really an occasion for celebration if one has more than two.
Tom blames Malthus. So do I. That Negative Nellie who predicted horrible things from overpopulation may have alerted us to the need for feeding the world better, but he left no positive message to look forward to after that. Later generations have taken his negativity and simply tweaked it to their own uses. The latest of these, of course, is the environment, which for many is elevated far beyond the original concerns of making sure that it can sustain life for all as it should (which I support so don't get all over me about this ... I recycle newspapers and suchlike). For many "the environment" as a cause has taken on religious undertones that make it equal in itself to human life.
Never have I been more happy to be Catholic. The Church understands and promotes stewardship of the earth but always with the understanding that human life, people, are the most precious of God's creations. Supporting man's dignity and right to life itself therefore trumps specious semi-scientific claims of environmental good in this case.
I find it interesting that in the age of technology, living more comfortably than any generation has, we also are more afraid than ever that our earthly comforts might diminish in some way. What has happened to the spirit of exploration and discovery that fueled some of man's greatest inventions? We have walked on the moon, looked at far away stars with the Hubble telescope, developed penicillin and other "wonder drugs" that extend life, built pyramids with little more than ingenuity, and so much more. Why now are we such a bunch of nay sayers, fearful of the future?
I was infused with the optimistic belief that man will overcome obstacles long before I became Catholic or even discovered that God does indeed exist. In the early years of our marriage, Tom turned me on to science historian James Burke's television series Connections and The Day the Universe Changed. At the time, the big science worry was the depletion of the ozone layer. I will never forget the mingled sense of relief and revelation that struck me as he calmly pointed out the many ways that we could continue to survive easily should such a thing occur ... with current technology. He went on to point out that many of our brightest minds would be busily working away on new inventions to solve both the problem and subsequent results. I felt a renewed optimism. "Why," I wondered, "had no one ever pointed this out to me before?"
We won't go into the various failures of news media on this point.
I just know that we have a spirit of pessimism these days. My grandparents enthusiastically hailed new inventions, even if it was just putting Tang, the breakfast of astronauts (!) on the table. The comparison between their view and that generally held these days is heartbreaking.
Now for the spoiler. Hopefully you've read the editorial in full.
I am pleased to see that there are still places where we can find proper perspective in national media.
The real answer, of course, is to have a little more faith in the creative powers of human beings. Given the freedom to grow and innovate, surely the same people who have licked polio, sent a man to the moon, and given us a revolution in information will sooner or later come up with new technologies that will provide for our energy needs while being friendlier to the environment.
The task is not without its challenges. But we’re not likely to get far with a “science” that defines the problem as American babies.
