The Need to Breed

It’s just so…distasteful.

Just about any time I write about the blessing of children (and that’s a lot, because there’s a lot to be said), someone will leave a comment the gist of which is that…well, here. Let me give you one of the more interesting examples:

We used to procreate to keep the human race going, we used to have several kids so that we’d have people to look after us in our old age (before things like pensions and retirement homes were around), we used to breed out of necessity and also because we didn’t have the medicine/technology to prevent it. We no longer live in such times, and some people have realised that and are perhaps simply more socially evolved.

There are so many problems with this line of “thinking” that it’s hard to even know where to start. (I’ll note only in passing the fact that, unless I missed the invention of some new way of doing it, procreation is still the only way to keep the human race going. Rather ironic that the position that would lead to extinction should be considered the more “evolved” one, isn’t it?)  All I really have to say to that commenter is:

Enjoy your stay in whatever fine old-age establishment our broke-ass healthcare system chooses for you. When you get there, don’t come crying to me about the fact that your night-shift CNA is more interested in timing her next smoke break to coincide with the janitor’s for a little hanky-panky in the linen closet than she is in whether you’re getting turned in your bed and fed properly. After all, you haven’t really lived until you’ve had a bedsore try to kill you.  Wouldn’t want to leave this world without that experience. I used to work in that sad and hopeless industry and….well, you asked for that, and I truly hope you find the accommodations to your liking.

Another common complaint I get is that our children cost us more in time and money than they used to because “we’re not farmers anymore.” I will concede that most people aren’t farmers anymore, and don’t need our kids to become farm-hands for us. What I don’t concede is that that was ever a very strong reason for having children anyway. You see, I have several of them at the moment, and not one of them has proven (yet) to be more of a help than a hindrance. My 8 year old is reaching an age where he can wash dishes and put them away on his own, maybe do a little light housework between imaginary battles with dragons,  but that’s a far cry from being a real financial plus.

Slave labor. Right.

While children were indeed given more responsibility one hundred years ago than they are now—whether rightly or wrongly is another topic entirely–the idea that we were popping out ready-made slave labor back then, whereas they are nothing but liabilities now, is a silly one. There has always been a solid decade and a half of investment in the life of each child born to a family before any real pay-off can be expected. Most parents love their children, and even in the distant and “unevolved” past they wouldn’t break their children’s backs with hard labor before they were strong enough to survive it. Even after they’re grown, they have this annoying tendency to run off and have kids of their own, so they’ve practically never meant money in the pocket to their parents. However, they are a different kind of asset, and a more important one than money.

The huge up-front investment required of parents is, in fact, the primary reason for the traditional division of labor we’ve so blithely tossed to the side in our more evolved times. Children have always needed a mother devoted to their care, because they can’t even care for themselves, let alone haul in your harvest for you! That’s half of the labor force, devoted to raising the next generation. We don’t have the social structure for that in America anymore, I agree, because we’ve judged that to be a job that isn’t worth doing . Where we differ, dear commenters, is in believing that the dependent state of our offspring is a curse, rather than a blessing.

New humans are no less useful today than they were yesterday. Old humans seem to be considerably stupider, though. We don’t seem to understand (and by “we”, I mean “not me”) that children are a literal investment. You have to put in the work to get the payoff. You can’t contribute no people to the future and then expect that future to go well for you any more than you can put zero dollars into your 401K and expect it to be there when you’re ready to retire. (Not that I expect that to pan out, either, but let’s just roll with the CW for this example, OK?)

I hate to have to spell all this out, because a) it feels like talking down to people and b) it’s not even all that interesting to think about, but apparently there is a large number of people of reproductive age who actually need these bald facts pointed out to them before it is too late for them to decide to procreate for their own good.

You are going to be old and vulnerable someday.

Your retirement funds–assuming they mature the way you expect them to, which they won’t–can’t make people care about you. You need people to look out for you who aren’t being paid to do it, but who do it out of familial duty. The d-word might be considered an uncouth one in our self-centered age (especially when prefaced with the f-word), but it is still a necessary part of human relationships, no matter how hard we try to do away with it.

Money might (possibly) put that dismal, overcooked food in front of you, but it won’t make Fat Nancy* the CNA give you more than your allotted ten minutes in the dining room to coax your finicky old appetite to accept it. I’m not even exaggerating a smidge when I tell you that the elderly often die of malnutrition in rest homes simply because it takes them too long to eat.  Even if you luck into a good staff at your last home on earth, your 401k certainly isn’t going to contain enough cash to give Nancy the leisure to hold your withered old hand as you rattle off your last regrets. She has twenty other (childless) people to look after, too, you know.

Even assuming that your old age is secured from inhumane treatment by the (never witnessed in human history) loving kindness of state-paid strangers, somebody is still going to have to work to pay those taxes that our beneficent state will rely upon to support your wrinkled old butt. I have 5 future taxpayers in my home. You’re welcome. (Actually, no you’re not welcome. I resent the heck out of your presumption on the future labor of my children, who deserve the fruits of their own labor.)

I’d love to end this post with something uplifting, or at least clever, but I don’t have time to come up with anything. I have to go feed the five people to whom I hope to ingratiate myself at this end of their lives, so that they might care enough to devote themselves just as carefully to the end of mine. Now, go. Make babies. Your future depends on it.

*Apparently, the word “fat” is setting off some outrage sensors. Sorry about that. Was going for a word picture, not describing an actual human being. I write. Sometimes for effect. Sometimes I get carried away. I’d also like to apologize to people named Nancy.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Jen January 11, 2013, 12:25 pm

    Fun read. I don’t think this is why people reproduce, though. I think kids are like a wonderfully-satisfying piece of dessert: why not have another helping?*

    *Yes, I have kids. Yes, the throw up/argue/scream/poop/smear ketchup on the carpet/etc. But its all part of the day, right?

    • Cindy January 11, 2013, 2:50 pm

      It’s definitely not why I reproduce. It’s just a really good reason to reconsider not reproducing. :-)

  • Carlotta January 11, 2013, 5:27 pm

    I caught a link to you via and love your blog. I agree, as a former CNA, that the elderly are treated horribly. I, for one, remind myself constantly that the way I treat my children is most likely the way they will treat me. Sobering.

    God Bless you and continue to stand your post. Well done!

  • Kristi January 11, 2013, 11:27 pm

    LOL!! Great post! Subbing to your blog :)

    • Cindy January 12, 2013, 9:28 am


  • Christine L. January 12, 2013, 8:17 am

    I’m glad to (seemingly) have found another Christ-led mother who is absolutely fed up with (stupid) human tendencies. God made us to be so much more than most even try. For my own passing comments on the size of our family (7 kids, 6 boys and finally a little girl), I’ve dabbled with the “blessings of God”, “I like MY children”, and finally “Well, SOMEONE has to pay into the Medicare mess that our country is facing”. Choosing not to have children is, whatever, a choice. I’m not going to run down the list of the reasons people have offered (not solicited by me), mostly because I don’t care. But if you’re going to comment on the size of my brood, you’ve opened yourself up to a whole host of my reasons, and not all of them are going to be heavenly.

    • Cindy January 12, 2013, 8:56 am

      I like that “(seemingly)”. It pays to be cautious on the internet. For all you know, I might be a very cleverly constructed straw man. 😉 Thanks for dropping by!

  • Christina January 14, 2013, 12:10 pm

    You regularly challenge me to ENJOY my children more. I was married in my mid twenties, am 28 and and just had my second son. Before marriage I traveled to various cities and countries, and lived in very diverse cities doing work I loved. I knew family life meant trading in a lot of that fun for a different kind of fun- fun that I knew I would have a hard time consistently enjoying. Your logical reminders of WHY we should have children help me to stay focused on the good. My sometimes cynical thinking needs the anchor of the Word to keep steady. This is hilarious and true! My discipleship groups last visit t0 a nursing home included telling the very busy nurse that 4 residents down just one hall had gone to the bathroom on themselves. And one had been yelling for quite some time for help. Heartbreaking.

  • Always Blessed January 15, 2013, 3:21 pm

    How do you know your own children will be taking care of you? Lots of people in nursing homes have children. I hope your children do, but it is by no means certain.

    Have kids is not a guarantee of wonderful,caring elder care. And it’s certainly not a reason to have kids.

    • Cindy January 15, 2013, 3:45 pm

      I don’t! I know that they will care for me, if they grow up right, but I suppose all sorts of things could go wrong in the meantime. I’m not speaking of giving them full responsibility for my future. Rather, I’m speaking of having a tight-knit family that cares for each other through the vulnerabilities of both old age and youth! One thing I can say for certain is that people who don’t exist can’t do anything at all, as they don’t exist. Seems obvious to me.

  • tereza crump aka mytreasuredcreations January 16, 2013, 12:37 am

    This is so funny. I came from Generation Cedar website and landed on your post “I’m Working my Life Away.” There I left a comment that says exactly what you wrote on this post. That was a few hours ago. I just now came back to check on any replies and read more of your blog. What a surprise to find this post on exactly what I wrote earlier today!!!

    Yes, people that don’t have kids (don’t want or like them) are completely blind! I got 4. I am gearing up for more. :)

    • Cindy January 16, 2013, 5:39 am

      That is funny. Makes me feel better, though. Next time a person wants to complain about this post, I’ll send them your email address so that somebody else can deal with it for a while. :-)

  • Kristin(11onmyown) January 16, 2013, 9:39 am

    My husband left me 6 years ago with 10 children still at home, the youngest an infant. I have had to use govt. assistance periodically, to provide food and insurance, and it was my older children who stepped up when the child support didn’t come – which was always. I don’t have a retirement fund, investments, or savings of any kind. When I am an old lady, I will not be a drain on society because my social security will be Justin, Ian, Derek, Courtney, Brandon, Connor, Cassidy, Liam, Trinity, Jordan, and Dominic – my children. The way it has been for centuries.

    • Cindy January 16, 2013, 12:01 pm

      Oh, wow, what a situation. My grandmother raised her younger ones on her own (twelve, total). I’m sad to say that only a few of them were any use in her old age, but my father and one of his brothers did a marvelous job helping her in her last years. My mother also took wonderful loving care of her when we had to move in to see her through her last years. Many arrows, just in case some of them miss. 😉

  • Becky January 18, 2013, 9:37 am

    Wow – that’s putting it bluntly. And I appreciated every second of it. I too have 5, but they are all girls, so I hope that instead of contributing to the taxes that are paid, they become a dependent tax break on their husbands so they can raise a lot more little dependent tax breaks. And I would add, that if you have more than one, you have a greater chance of being cared for without overburdening the one, or possibly two little caregivers you manage to produce.

  • Liz January 22, 2013, 10:37 am

    I’m so glad to have found your site! I totally agree. My husband works in healthcare and he says the very saddest thing he sees – and we’re talking about someone who is dealing with death, cancer, terminal conditions on a daily basis – is the elderly person who dies all alone, with no one there by their side (other than a nurse or doctor) as they pass into eternity. I know many friends and former co-workers who have purposely, proudly chosen sterility, either because of the “carbon footprint” their unwanted offspring would leave, or because it didn’t fit into their career, or just because they enjoyed playing video games all day and would hate to have their lifestyle interrupted by a little screaming nuisance (yes, this was a serious reason someone gave me for not having kids). It is sad to think ahead to the end of their lives, when no one will be there to care for them, no one will care when they die, and they will also pass into eternity with nothing more than a call to their social worker to inform them of the passing of Mr. Doe, case file # 112233. So sad.

    I, like you, am also hoping to “ingratiate” myself to at least one of our soon-to-be six children so that someone will care to do more than just feed and water me and my husband as we grow old! 😉

  • Mrs. E February 7, 2013, 11:44 am

    Since you couldn’t end this post with something uplifting, I will. My Grandma did spend her last days in a nursing home. Why did she end up there (besides for medical needs)? Her 5 adult children who lived within a 30 mile radius all still worked full time. The horror, I know. Anyways, so Grandma was at a nursing home. When it was decided she needed hospice care you could not have asked for two better women to take care of her. They were a mother-daughter team. They spent hours with her when family wasn’t there. On Grandma’s last day they both stopped by her room. The daughter told us a story about one particular time when Grandma was in a lot of pain (she didn’t handle medication well) and she couldn’t get comfortable. She said she ended up cradling my Grandma like a baby and that soothed her. Is that not love? These were Christian women. I could go on, like how one of Grandma’s caretakers, when she still lived at home, was near her age and became a dear friend to Grandma. Just wanted to put a plug in for those outstanding individuals who take care of the elderly. They’re out there too.

    • Cindy February 7, 2013, 2:34 pm

      Absolutely, they are! Didn’t mean to imply differently. Just that there are certain relationships upon which more trust can safely be built. Praise God for community!

  • Adrienne February 9, 2013, 10:17 pm

    Interesting. I won’t be rude and/or biting here, but I do not want to have kids. I love children and have been a schoolteacher for 10 years, but I simply do not want them. My husband feels the same. Do I think women who have kids are crazy or airheaded? Goodness, no! But, I can’t help but feel personally lambasted in this post. Why should I have children just so someone can take care of me in my old age? Who says I will make it to old age? Who says they will even take care of me? The vast majority of elderly in assisted living homes HAVE children who will not take care of them anyway. It just seems like not enough of a reason to have kids. They are plenty, and this may be one of them, but not a strong enough argument. Also, it does seem a little….close-minded that you only keep around comments that “contribute to the conversation” aka, agree wholeheartedly with you. It is your blog and you, of course, can write whatever you want, and delete whatever you want, but when a blog is written with such a…”strong” tone, it seems an invitation for debate.

    • Cindy February 11, 2013, 3:43 pm

      I keep around all sorts of comments. You can disagree while still “contributing to the conversation”. I wonder what makes you think I delete so many comments. (Editing again. Sorry.) Here’s a link to my comment policy:

      If you think you don’t need kids, then I’m sure you’ll be just fine. (In the sense that you’ll be preparing to hire your help and advocate for yourself somehow. I guess everything can be made somewhat less risky with planning.) And my kids will keep the economy running under you when you’re too old to do so anymore. I do think it’s silly to point to parents whose kids have abandoned them and say that that’s a good reason not to have kids, when the number of kids who remain faithful is as great or greater. It is shortsighted of you to not have any children on purpose. It is simply a fact that someday you will be old, and I’ll bet you’ll long for the freshness of a young hand to hold, and the closeness of a relationship with a son or daughter. If you feel comfortable being old and having no younger, more able-bodied family around, then that is your future to determine. However, since you’re having none, somebody else’s kids are going to have to pick up the slack in your care. That is not only short-sighted, it is selfish.

  • Michelle February 20, 2013, 6:44 pm

    How refreshing! This hit the spot. I could never have said it better, though I wish I could.
    I would love to add more, but my many blessings have me busy, and I am not complaining.

  • Angela February 26, 2013, 2:35 pm


  • Molly February 28, 2013, 8:39 pm

    Good for you! You’ve put into words something I’ve felt for a long time. I recently read a young woman’s comments on a blog about working vs. staying at home with the kids. She referred to it as choosing “whether to be there for your kids or to use your brain and contribute to the world.” I was amused, but deeply saddened at this. First of all, if you find yourself bored at home, it is up to you to find ways to engage your brain. I find becoming a really good housewife and homeschooling mom to be very challenging intellectually, and I’m no slouch. But to actually think that only paid employees are contributing to the world?

    They don’t understand that the job is not wiping little noses and feeding little tummies, but creating the next generation of citizens, who have unlimited human potential. They are an investment, and as you pointed out, not just to me or my husband, but to all of society. An occasional “thanks” would be nice to hear!

  • Renee March 10, 2013, 9:25 am

    Found your blog through a post on Visionary Womanhood….I’m a “retired” registered nurse. Meaning, I decided to quit working when I had my fourth baby to stay home with my kiddos. Just wanted to say…the word picture you painted of the nursing home is more than accurate. So for any who comment that you were too harsh – I might suggest they take an entire day to volunteer at their local nursing home (or just go visit for the day) and keep your eyes open. You might find a few nicely managed, efficient, clean nursing homes that take very good care of their residents (because they are not all bad)…but for the most part…they will see your description was unfortunately pretty accurate.

    • Cindy March 11, 2013, 8:05 am

      Oh, yeah, it’s accurate. I saw it myself. There are some great homes, too, but they’re the private ones. By the time I’m old, I doubt any but the wealthiest among us will be able to afford private care once Obamacare takes care of what’s left of the system. It will all be state funded, and it will all be miserable.

  • Melissa March 11, 2013, 1:48 pm

    Thank you for saying what I don’t have the balls to say!!! I love this!!! I’m prego with number 4, due any day, and I’m starting to get those types of comments. I hope I can remember some of your clever points to bring up next time someone feels the need to “enlighten” me. Thanks again!!

  • Erin March 26, 2013, 8:11 am

    Wow – I stumbled upon your blog and love it. Funny, truthful….really enjoying it!

  • Anonymous April 21, 2013, 11:39 pm

    I would first like to say that I think children are great. It’s wonderful to have a family and I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have kids, but I don’t think the goal of the human race is/should be to keep procreating. The extinction of people is not a problem, and I don’t think it will be anytime soon. There are many problems with overpopulation in this world and a solution to that could be instead of having 5+ kids, families could have one or two. That way you can still have family to take care of you, but you don’t need to bring the world population up any more than it needs to be. I think that the original comment that brought about this post was trying to say that we don’t need to have children to keep the human race going.

    Also, I would like to say that CNAs aren’t evil. I feel that you presented them with very negative connotations. I don’t think it’s very fair to make them seem like they are all waiting to have “a little hanky-panky in the linen closet.” Even those on the night shift have feelings, lives, and reasons behind the things they do and the jobs they have.

    That’s all I have to say. I’m not hating on your opinions or views, I just thought I’d add a different way of looking at things.

  • Stuart Mather May 22, 2013, 2:08 am

    Hi all,
    Having children so enriches your life, and if they turn out well so enrich society as well. So it is completely understandable why people want to have children (Women AND Men). Yet we are but one of God’s creatures, and as the top dog, we have a duty to look after the whole of his family, not just our own species. Unfortunately at 6 billion (and counting) this poor little planet needs more humans like it needs a hole in the head. Not because we can’t grow enough food for the human population. Humans are clever creatures. We will ALWAYS be able to grow enough food. Getting it to the mouths that actually need it has- historically at least – proved more of a challenge, but even that is doable. No the real completely unavoidable reason that we should stop breeding for a while (until the human footprint on the earth is not quite so selfish) is that planet earth just refuses to get any bigger. If only for the sake of future generations who will inherit the cumulative results of all those individual impulses to breed, as compelling , and seen through the prism of the rewards of family life, as overwhelmingly positive as they are.
    The simple fact is that we now have a duty (if only to the children we don’t have, to rise above those indivdualistic impulses, or future generations will look back on us and fairly ask – ‘How could you all have been so selfish?’ Even God abjures us above all else to look after our planetary home, yet we seem far too prepared to just forget that bit and respond instead to the bit about ‘going out and multiplying’
    Remember it’s not because children and family is not so wonderful that we need to rise above those impulses. It’s because they are so utterly irresistible and fulfilling.


    • Cindy May 22, 2013, 9:25 pm

      Obviously we’re not talking about the same God, here.

      • Stuart Mather May 22, 2013, 11:01 pm

        I was referring to the Christian God. Which one do you mean?
        Actually for what it’s worth all the major human religions preach the same message about looking after the earth first and foremost. But the followers of those faiths all too often forget this because of the cultural and biological urge to breed. Ovaries and seeing how wonderful children are at every glance are pretty hard to resist after all.
        Were you referring to the God of a minor religion perhaps?
        In any case, a cursory glance through the comments is proof positive that those influences (cultural and biological) are indeed compelling, so it will be VERY difficult indeed to rise above them for the sake of our planetary home – which let’s face it, needs our help in reducing the burden this curiously wonderful species has imposed on it.
        Remember, our children depend on us rising to the challenge. And we have the wisdom to do it. As yet just not the will.
        But I’m anxious that you don’t succumb to a knee jerk condemnation impulse. And I’m nothing if not a curious fellow. So I have to ask you, if young women throughout the world continue to respond to those powerful cultural and biological influences to breed, and life expectancy continues to increase, where on earth are they all going to live and thrive, given that we are but one of millions of other species, all of whom surely also deserve to live and thrive as God (whichever God that may be for you) intended when the earth was created.

        • Cindy May 23, 2013, 7:14 am

          I mean the Christian God. The one who says he’s sovereign over these things, who said be fruitful and multiply. The one who sustains us all, and the earth, and the universe, so that the end result of my following his command is up to him, not me. And no, we don’t have the wisdom. We profess ourselves to be wise, but we are fools. As for your last question, you have access to the same resources I do for finding out that answer. Why don’t you just google “over population myth” for the relevant information and use your own noodle? 😉 I’ll get you started, though. Here’s an interesting and well done site:

          • Stuart Mather May 23, 2013, 7:49 am

            Thtat’s just it Cindy.
            ‘Be fruitful and multiply. But that doesn’t just apply to humans. The earth that whatever God you worship created had it’s own natural checks and balances.
            Simply put, populations of creations myriad species were kept in check by being eaten , disease, infant mortality etc. Only humans have dared to challenge that exquisite order by technological mastery over our environment.
            But that cleverness doesn’t seem yet t0 have come up with a means of mastering that now unchecked ‘need to breed’ Don’t get me wrong, I’m as impressed by technological wizardry as the next human. But it d0es come with special responsibilities. And as yet we just don’t seem up to the job.
            I notice you have mentioned google as if that has the required answers. Yet you seem strangely silent on what those answers actually are.
            So perhaps you could give me an example of how we can meet that challenge. Believe me, I hazard a guess that you don’t even concede that there is a problem.
            And hitherto, it’s been easy to dismiss the stock Malthusian alarmism about food security and starvation etc. It’s actually far simpler than that. Humans are becoming so numerous that they are just displacing every other species. Ultimately it will just lead to a little blue white world so overrun with humans (all with a mother and father -at least- who love them to distraction , and whose lives have been immeasurably enriched by having them. The zoos, final remnants of the rich diversity of creation, have fallen victim to dwindling gene pools, and their exhibits, who surely deserve to live in the wild (alas it’s all schools and roads and other human stuff. There are just too many of us.
            Are we all brave enough to resist the siren song of our biology and culture to breed? How long can we go on trying to use religion to justify it?

            • Cindy May 23, 2013, 7:57 am

              What challenge is it we’re supposed to meeting? Nevermind. I see what you mean. The challenge of stewardship. Mankind does have dominion over the animals, and a limited responsibility for taking care of the animals of the earth, which comes with the right to subdue it (God said that, too) but the modern notion of our “saving the planet” is a silly one. For one thing, we can’t. It’s dying because of sin. For another, the kinds of statistics and “research” that have been done in the name of ecology are nothing more than power and control schemes, so we don’t even have the kind of information we would need to know what we should do. I’d think the current implosion of the global warming narrative would be enough to make that clear. The number of people is not the problem. The fallenness of the people is the problem.

              And no, I am not “strangely silent”. I simply don’t have time to do your research for you. And I don’t use my religion to “justify” anything. I follow Christ. The God who created the Earth and said to be fruitful and multiply, to all things, as you said, didn’t rescind that order.

              • Ticia
                Twitter: TiciaAIM
                May 23, 2013, 8:21 am

                Honestly Cindy, having read this whole chain of comments, I don’t think he’s actually reading your responses.

                If anything large portions of first world countries are on the verge of collapse because people are not having enough children to replace the population. So Japan, Europe, and China are reaching a point where the retired and elderly portion of the population grossly outnumber those who are working.

                • Stuart Mather May 23, 2013, 10:58 pm

                  Isn’t the point that our Creator loved us so much that he’s hoping we get our act together and stop trying to disturb an earth that simply wasn’t designed (by that very Creator) to have humans as just one cog in a very big wheel. Nowhere in scripture do I find mention that humans are meant to overrun the planether in numbers which at tne very least are simply selfish. We’re just one species after all, yet we behave as if we are the most important.
                  Sure we’re the cleverest, but doesn’t that give us special responsibility to replace the natural checks and balances on our population set by that creator ( that we have eliminated by technological advances) with our own deliberate limits. Its as if we are humbly recognizing the magnificen ce of creation by respecting it properly.
                  Instead we just succumb to this very powerful ‘need to breed’ as if we were just any other species which also feels those biological urges just as powerfully.
                  Isn’t that why our creator gave us an intellect – to be able to respond sensibly to the challenges of having removed the natural checks and balances on our population by an act of free will over those biological and cultural compulsions? Itr really isn’t that difficult to deliberately limit family size after all. And our descendants will surely be in our debt
                  for not bequeathing them a human overrun planet.

                  • Cindy May 24, 2013, 5:53 am

                    Stuart, the Bible is where you find out what the Creator thinks of his creation. He nowhere implies any of what you say. In fact, quite the opposite, he expects us to continue to do our thing, so that he can do his thing. My blog is full of this stuff. I don’t need to repeat it.

                • Stuart Mather May 24, 2013, 5:42 am

                  How is the problem of a disproportionate percentage of elderly people sensibly addressed by just kicking the can down the road for some future generation to solve by allowing the human population to continue to increase? Don’t lose sight of the big picture. The problem is a planet overrun with humans. That’s hardly what our creator intended.
                  Granted it’s going to more difficult for a few generations as the demographics are skewed more towards the elderly. But we’re a clever industrious species. Our creator made us so. Surely we’re up for the challenge. One thing’s for certain. You don’t put out the fire by throwing more petrol on it.
                  And don’t worry. I read all the posts. It’s interesting.

  • Jenn Lyons May 23, 2013, 9:42 am

    I would ask that Stuart please show biblically, where he sees reference to showing preference to preserving our planet over God’s preference for people. Looking at the whole of scripture, I don’t see that. I see a command in the very beginning to be stewards of God’s creation. But if there is emphasis on it beyond that, I don’t know where it is. And I do humbly submit that I am not a bible “expert”. Just someone who loves God and reads His word on a regular basis.

    • Cindy May 23, 2013, 9:46 am

      That’s why I asked him which God he’s talking about. It’s most surely not the Creator God revealed in the Bible.

    • Stuart Mather May 24, 2013, 6:10 am

      That’s quite scary. Why would any human want to inherit a planet overrun with his/her kind. And it’s a bit of a giveaway that you think our creator ‘prefers humans’. That’s just pure human selfishness. We share the world God created with the other species integral to that creation. Humans aren’t better or worse than any of them. But what is abundantly clear from ourbreeding behaviour and our constant attempts to use the Bible to distort God’s central message of living in harmony with the planet that sustains all of us ( not just the human members of God’s family), is that we ignore his grand design at our peril.
      Being anthropocentric is the most dangerous human frailty of all.

      • Cindy May 24, 2013, 6:39 am

        Again, you’ve got the wrong God. God never said any of that stuff. Stuart Mather said that stuff. And Stuart Mather needs to read the Bible (correctly) if he wants to know what God thinks.