What about simplicity?

The "sustainable development commission" in England is about to make a proposal:

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

There are two important arguments against this. The first is that it's an effort to justify population control measures in third world countries where the families greatly value (and simply need) more children. Many still die of curable diseases and many hands are needed in labour-intensive economies. This is wrong and bad -- and it's racist. "Less from the unfit" (Sanger) is their motto behind closed doors.

Secondly, it ignores the fact that in developed countries, larger families consume less overall goods because of the economy and oblation necessary. Clothes are passed on or shared, extra-curriculars are minimised because of the family dynamic already present, each expenditure is shared (strollers, skates, cars, books, etc.) and these children simply learn to need less as they mimic the requisite generosity of the parents.

The premise about environmental costs assumes that each child will be outfitted and pampered to the nth degree. Larger families operate differently. Thus the outlay of a family with two children is usually far greater than one with six. (Now college is a different matter, but there are ways to cope with those ridiulous costs, which may even be rigged partially for this end.)

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning. Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

Thus self-control is not even an option -- let the elderly and sick die, kill the children. These are very unpleasant people, wouldn't you say?

In the end, larger families will have more children to contribute their sane thoughts in the public square than those who limit their children. They will also bear the burden of supporting the aging population. If I had a choice in my nursing home, I'd love a cheerful nurse from a large family who has the people skills and abundant virtues learned in a large family. What are the odds...?

Comments

[Teresa]

I don't buy this "unbearable burden on the environment" caused by having more than two children per couple. I happen to have more than two children and you know what? Those kids have planted more trees than I ever would had I been childless. Besides, I've talked to the trees. They told me they like babies.

[Enbrethiliel]

+JMJ+

The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Isn't the low birthrate the main reason England is letting in hundreds of immigrants, who are (let's face it) an even bigger liability to the government than the children in a "double-digit" family will ever be?

[Patricia]

Some have seen the light though. Many newpaper columnists are calling Porrit's comments "anti-human" and have referred to him as an "enemy of the human race".
The troubling aspect of this is that often then comments are made as a thin edge of the thought wedge - floating the idea which initially receives a great deal of press and outrage only to be adopted as policy years later. We've seen this with birth control, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Next on the list would appear to be polygamy and restricting family size.