More abortions. More birth-control. That’s how we can fix the “global warming” problem being discussed at the U.N.’s climate change conference in Copenhagen. At least that’s what Diane Francis argues in her column for Financial Post titled “The real inconvenient truth.” She writes,
‘The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
‘A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
‘The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.’
Anybody who knows anything about China’s “one-child” policy should shudder at this argument. Authorities estimate that China’s “one-child”policy has prevented 250 million births from its implementation in 1979 to 2000. This draconian policy has resulted in forced abortions, female infanticide, and a gender imbalance. Tragically, because so many female babies have been either aborted or killed, there are millions of male children who have now grown up and who have no prospects for marriage. There are simply not enough females for them to marry (Albert Mohler has written extensively about this here).
And now Diane Francis wants to foist this tragedy upon the entire world by way of new international laws. The sad thing is that she is not alone in this kind of thinking. If you’ve been paying attention to the radical wing of environmentalists for any amount of time, you will find that this policy flows right out of their playbook. Many of them regard humans as the problem in the world, not the solution. So it’s no surprise that their policy prescriptions often involve the elimination of humans from the environmental equation.
This kind of thinking grows out of a worldview that is radically opposed to a Christian worldview. While Christians agree with radical environmentalists that humans are the cause of great evils in the world, we do not agree with them about the remedy to the human condition. Radical environmentalists tend toward the elimination of humanity. Christians argue for the redemption of humanity. After all, the Christian hope is nothing less than a restoration of the paradise that was lost in the Garden of Eden. There God told Adam and Eve to rule over all of creation and to be fruitful and to multiply (Genesis 1:26-28). In the Edenic state, God commanded procreation and population growth, and He called it “good.”
I’m all for being a good steward of the creation, and that includes not wasting or irrevocably destroying the natural resources God has given us. That being said, we all need to be wary of radical environmentalists that turn the creation into an idol to be worshiped. When that happens, humans are no longer safe. Diane Francis’s article is a case in point.