Home » Dorms » Student Lounge

The Overpopulation Debate, Part 2: Are There Solutions?

Overpopulation Recap

In last week's article, I discussed a few things: 1) my own ignorance; 2) the fact that Earth's population has exploded in the past decade; 3) the fact that some people like to use fact #2 to justify abortion; and 4) some thoughts on how the problem might be more complex than we make it out to be.

What I didn't do was offer an easy pro-life solution to overpopulation, because I don't think there is one. But I do think that that a life-affirming approach to the world's population must exist, because God doesn't put us in situations where it is impossible to obey Him (difficult, maybe, but not impossible).

To start thinking about a biblical approach to overpopulation, let's go back to the three summary statements I gave last time and compare each one to God's Word.

Overpopulation is a problem because it means that some people don't have basic resources like food, water and shelter.

One visit to a slum in Nairobi, Calcutta or Port au Prince will quickly drive home the tragedy of people living in crowded poverty. There's pretty much no question that this is a problem that must be addressed. And the Bible does that frequently. Old Testament law is full of references to the poor and God's people's responsibility to care for them. Try Exodus 23:11, Leviticus 19:10, Leviticus 25:25 and Deuteronomy 15:7 for starters. The theme of caring for the less fortunate continues under the new covenant. Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33 and James 1:27 are just representations of what is said many times elsewhere.

Given the comparative wealth of so many of us, combined with the ease of sending (or even taking) resources around the globe, there is no excuse for allowing overpopulation in some areas to destroy human life.

Overpopulation is a problem because humans are destroying plant and animal life and ravaging the environment.

Of all the debates about overpopulation, this one is the most likely to get heated. There are two reasons for this, I think. First, humans have historically tended to use the earth for all we can get out of it, with relatively little regard for its proper care. Those with a growing concern for our home planet have every right to be incensed about this. Also, the question of how to care for the environment has become politically and philosophically polarized, so now every time the topic is raised, we almost immediately lapse into a left vs. right fight, and we can't really talk about the facts at hand.

I find two questions pertinent for Christians trying to deal with the environmental issue. First, What does the Bible say about our responsibility to the earth? While it doesn't say a ton, it definitely doesn't support the idea that we should selfishly suck all the life out of the earth. It doesn't even say we can do as we please, so long as we're not, like, dumping tankers full of oil into the ocean, which is the attitude of many Christians (and non-Christians).

First, we're repeatedly admonished not to be selfish at all. Also, given passages like Leviticus 25:4-5, I'd say the tone of the Bible toward the earth is that we should make use of it for our good, but also care for it and allow it to replenish itself. (It's the ancient Hebraic version of sustainable agriculture!) It's also significant that later in the same chapter (vs. 23) God reminds His people that the land's not theirs in the first place, but His. So, the biblical model for life here on earth isn't one of careless, self-centered use, but of careful stewardship of something lovingly created by God. That means it really matters how we live, and that we ought to be constantly refining our habits to be more earth-friendly, rather than just giving lip-service to stewardship of the environment.

The second relevant question is What is the value of humanity relative to plants and animals? If this seems like an odd question to ask, that's because it is. But some voices in the overpopulation debate want to set up a false dichotomy in which the environment can't thrive as long as humans are being fruitful and multiplying. For example (and I'm not joking), there is a group known as The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement,¹ who believe it's our ethical responsibility to stop breeding and die off so that the rest of the life forms on this planet can thrive. That's not a belief that fits within a Christian worldview. (And like I said before, neither is the opposing view that humans should thrive at the unnecessary expense of plants and animals.) Because humans are made in the image of God,² the Bible clearly sets us apart from the rest of the world as His special creation. Our relationship to plants and animals should be one of care³ — but not one of deference.

Overpopulation is a problem because it keeps some countries from developing economically.

This is true in the sense that a rapidly growing population makes it difficult to increase per capita wealth. And it was one driving factor in China's adoption of the one-child policy back in the early '80s⁴Unfortunately, in that country, and in the minds of abortion advocates worldwide, the idea that overpopulation is a hindrance to economy justifies forced (or at least "on-demand") abortions. So now we're back to where we started. If abortion is murder, then saying it's OK to abort a child to increase the wealth of his countrymen is ethically equal to saying that we can exterminate part of a population in order to increase the standard of living for another part of that same population. That's been tried a few times — most notably by a guy named Adolf, back in the 1940s. Clearly, it's something that can't be done within a Christian worldview.

What's a Body to Do?

OK, OK, you're thinking, those are good ideas, but they're not a solution. I know. But I think they at least help to put things in perspective. In other words, I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't react to human population growth as if the sky were falling. For starters, it's not clear that the sky is falling, and even if it is, it seems that overcorrection might cause just as many problems as it solves.

And, I think that if the debate about population growth is going to be productive, we need to stop using overpopulation as a magic word to help us win emotionally-charged political arguments. Instead, followers of Christ who are also trying to be responsible citizens of earth need to start looking at the complex questions that have been raised and start coming up with answers based on good science, good sociology, and the Good Book. Here are a couple we could start with:

• The declining fertility trends discussed earlier in this article are largely based on the assumption that "reproductive education and services" (read "contraception and abortion")⁵ will continue to be available to women around the world. If this is not an ethically acceptable method, what is?
• Do we have to actively seek to lower global fertility rates, or are there economic and/or social trends that will do that naturally?
• Is decreased fertility the only way to combat the negative effects of population growth, or should we be coming at the problem from another angle — say, encouraging environmental care and more equal wealth distribution? Or both?

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

What are some ways we can help those in overcrowded areas?

Join the discussion!

These are not easy questions. And I don't have the answers to them — not yet at least. But like I've said before, one of my favorite parts of the Christian life is that it strengthens our minds. As the world's next generation of leaders, it's so important that we jump out of the rut of abortion-centered thinking on human population trends and approach this very real issue from a life-affirming standpoint. I'm inviting you to join the expedition of critical thought.