Environment vs. Humans

Yes, yes...I know. "Mother Earth" has given us life, thus we should protect and take care of her...blah, blah, blah. Why are people so blinded by this environmental wacko stuff? People are more worried about a tree than a baby. "Don't cut (kill) down the tree!" is their mantra while they turn and tell us "It's okay to abort (murder) a baby!" I'm at a loss...really, I am. I mean, yes, it is important that we take care of the environment (i.e., conservation). I'm all for using the land and using it properly. After all, I hunt and have raised all sorts of livestock. Do you think I want to destroy the earth...well, no! But I do not worship the land either. Good grief. Now comes this report out of England. I hope you don't enjoy reading it.

British Environmental Advisor Backs Population Control, Two Kids Per Family
(by Steven ErteltLifeNews.com EditorFebruary 2, 2009)

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A chief environmental advisor in England is urging population control and says he believes there should be a limit in Britain of no more than two children per family. John Porritt, who chairs the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission, says any more than two children is "irresponsible."
Porritt told a British newspaper that the current climate in England can't accommodate any more children.
He says the national government should aggressively spend taxpayer funds on promoting abortions and birth control, contraception, and implementing programs urging parents to limit their number of children.
"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," he said.
"I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible," he told the London Times.
"It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don't really hear anyone say the 'p' word," he said of population control.
The government is expected to get a report next month from Porritt, who is an aide to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on the status of the population figures in England.
Porritt's comments have upset pro-life groups who compared his views to those of communist China, which forbids parents from having any more than one child and employs harsh punishments such as forced abortions and sterilizations for violators.
The population control regime in China has also resulted in sex-selection abortions and infanticides of girl babies and has drastically altered the male-female ratio of the nation. That has led to several social problems such as a bachelor nation, sex trafficking and prostitution, and the sale of teen girls.
Josephine Quintaville, founder of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, which is pro-life, responded to the population control advocacy.
"This seems to be the same old thing: save the world but kill a human," she said.
"As far as I understand it, it is the most affluent nations that are doing the most damage to the world, not the countries that have got the most children," she said.
Porritt also says he wants to convince more environmental groups of the connection between lowering the population levels and protecting the environment. However, many environmental groups have long been criticized for backing eugenic population control.

Environmental Stewardship In The Judeo-Christian Tradition

I am currently studying the above titled book (which I received free in the mail) from the Action Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan. While I have not finished it, there are some good thoughts in this book. In fact, let me quote part of the introduction as it is given on the back cover.

"A fair and honest debate about religious responses to environmental issues should always distinguish theological principles from prudential judgments. The Cornwall Declaration and the accompanying essays in this volume were written to do just that. They were not written to provide theological rationale for current environmentalist fashion. Rather, they seek to articulate the broad Judeo-Christian theological principles concerning the environment, and to distinguish those principles from contrary ideas popular in the environmental movement." (Jay W. Richards)

Part 4 of the book really piqued my interest. It is entitled "A Biblical Perspective On Environmental Stewardship" and contains a section (Section IV) entitled "Some Human And Environmental Concerns For Present And Future". Within this section such issues as population growth, global warming, and species extinction are discussed. Section V, "Environmental Market Virtues," also promises to be a good read.

Besides this book, there seems to be a large undercurrent within the Judeo-Christian world to become "green." Sometimes we use the terminology of "eco-friendly" or "eco-conscious" but it basically has the same purpose. What is the general concensus on such a move? Is it warranted? Or should it be avoided at all cost? Is there some middle ground, and if there is, how do we reach it?