Go Green: Get Married
by Candice Watters on 12/05/2007 at 5:11 PM
It seems the best thing we can do for the environment is to get married. Then stay that way.
Seriously.
In an article in the Times Online, journalist Roger Waite says couples who split use more electricity and water and require increased homebuilding and infrastructure. But it's not just divorced couples.
According to Waites "Planet Feels Heat of Divorce,"
The growth of single-person households is also damaging the environment. Research published in the journal Environment, Development and Sustainability found that:
One-person households are the biggest consumers of energy, land and household goods, such as washing machines, refrigerators, TVs and stereos, per capita
They consume 38% more products, 42% more packaging, 55% more electricity and 61% more gas per capita than four-person households
People living alone create 1 1/2 tons of waste annually compared with a ton by those in households of four or more
I didn't realize how green the Boundless team's "get married" message was. Do your duty for the planet. Get Married.
1. Drew said the following at 6:53 PM on Dec 5:
Nice article yet another resin to get married.
2. Louise said the following at 8:14 PM on Dec 5:
Sure.
At the risk of being blunt, I don't believe that this idea is the truth, simply because it does not make sense.
How could a household with only person consume more products than one with four or more?
At present I am sitting in a house with a thermastat set to a mere sixty- three degree, to attempt to save energy to HELP THE ENVIRONMENT. And because I live alone, I don't have to hear the non stop complaining about why I keep the heat so low!
3. Tom said the following at 9:07 PM on Dec 5:
I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but don't forget that us singles won't be bringing kids into the world any time soon, which means less people, which means better for the env!
(Really, this is as valid as the original argument was :-p)
4. Jess said the following at 9:12 PM on Dec 5:
Louise,
Which uses more power: Two people living in separate houses using the same amount of heating each, or two people living in the same house using the same amount of heating together?
I think that's all the article's getting at - you use less power if you're sharing power-using items with someone else.
5. Josh said the following at 9:21 PM on Dec 5:
The key phrase here is "per capita." This is saying that a household with two people consumes fewer resources than those two people would if they were living separately. I think this makes perfect sense.
For what it's worth, you don't have to be married to reap these benefits. I'm single and I rent a large house with several other guys. Among the many things we share is food. Every month one person takes a turn doing the grocery shopping for the whole house, and we commit to eating dinner together once a week. I bet we waste less food (and money) this way than we would if we were all living separately. Plus, it's nice not having to go grocery shopping for five out of six months. My hope is that this living arrangement, with the inevitable conflicts that arise between people living together, is preparing each of us for marriage someday.
I think the real finding here is not so much that marriage is efficient but that individualism is wasteful.
6. Vanessa said the following at 9:24 PM on Dec 5:
Part of the "waste" theory could be that single person households are more prone to convenience meals and the trash they produce. However, when I lived by myself and had a whole refrigerator to myself, I cooked far more often than I do when I have to share space and kitchen time with two roommates. Trust me, I would rather be married then single, but I am counting the days until I can afford to live by myself again.
7. Matt said the following at 9:39 PM on Dec 5:
Believe me, I'd love to...
8. dave said the following at 9:44 PM on Dec 5:
this article is just a little ridiculous. I guess cheaper by the dozen is true.
9. Josh M said the following at 10:52 PM on Dec 5:
I read that as each person in the household produces less waste, etc, than if they were living alone, not that the household as a whole produces less. So the average 4-person household produces 4 tons of waste to the single persons 1.5, but if there were to be a separation those 4 would become 6 tons. I think that does make sense then, being able to share wash loads, and food, and by having a family having less for large consumer items (entertainment, etc).
Josh "Trin"
10. ptschett said the following at 11:02 PM on Dec 5:
Louise, it's not that single people use greater quantities than a family, but that the single person can't use the resources as efficiently.
For example. The heat loss through your home's walls will be the same regardless of the number of occupants. If it costs $100/month to heat the house with just 1 person, it'll cost $100/month to heat it with 4, but with 4 people the individual share is only $25/month.
11. Jo said the following at 11:17 PM on Dec 5:
I don't need yet another reason to get married. What I need is a man to get married TO.
12. Jerry said the following at 11:53 PM on Dec 5:
They mean less *per person*, not overall.
13. Louise said the following at 5:32 AM on Dec 6:
Overpopulation is very harmful to the planet, so anyone serious about "doing your duty to the planet" would not be actively against the option of using birth control.
14. Anne said the following at 6:26 AM on Dec 6:
As a single woman, living alone I say...YUP! I am killing the environment one disposible plate/fork/cup at a time. And all the packaging on those frozen dinners...definatly.
And If I forget to turn the lights off, or raidio- they play all day while I'm at school and work.
Now, before anyone jumps up and down on my head, I do try to recycle, but because I work so much I look for as many time saving measures at home as possible, and most of them include consuming quite a bit (lysol wipes, paper towels, swiffer stuff...the list goes on and on...).
And my guess is I'm not alone.
15. Patricia Hampson said the following at 6:30 AM on Dec 6:
It is logical that generally speaking people who live in larger households consume less. But such an argument could also be used to promote urban living over suburban or rural, since it is much more energy efficient. In short, gettting roommates, moving to a city, giving up your car, etc could accomplish the same result without getting married...
16. obewan said the following at 6:45 AM on Dec 6:
Don't forget there is always the roommate option. I shared a 3 bedroom house with 2 other males for 12 years. Saved more money than owning because there was no property tax.
17. kman said the following at 7:07 AM on Dec 6:
How could a household with only person consume more products than one with four or more?
OK. You're in a house by yourself say 1000 sq ft.. Another person is in another house of 1000 sq ft. That's 2000 sq ft of house to heat seperately.
Put those two people in one of those houses. Only have to heat 1000 sq ft for two people.
Another example, but not as drastic,
You take a trip to the store to get food. The other person takes a trip to get food. The food bought will total the same, BUT the cost of the trip will be less.
Adding more people creates an economy of scale.
18. Melissa D. said the following at 7:09 AM on Dec 6:
This also pertains to having roommates. Although I buy my own food, which means we're not really saving the earth with less food packaging, we're sharing the energy used for heat and water. Add in the cost of splitting the mortgage, cable, internet, and electricity, and I'm saving $200 a month, easily, by sharing living space with a friend. It's globally and fiscally responsible.
19. Jacob MT said the following at 7:15 AM on Dec 6:
Louise: They mean that per person, the consumtion is less. You still consume a similar amount to run a household of 4 as you would to run a household of one. Even if twice as much is consumed by the household, it is supporting four times as many people, thus resulting in 50% comsumption per capita.
20. Nate said the following at 7:17 AM on Dec 6:
Louise,
Think about it like this. Two people live apart. They have 2 separate freezers that use electricity. They get married. Now they put all their food into one freezer. One freezer uses less electricity than two. This is a simple principle of economics.
Also, couples with children are usually on a tighter budget than singles. (I'm single, so I can say this honestly.) They tend to be more economical in their usage of electricity, water, etc. to keep costs low. This is a generalization, but one that is accurate.
I'm surprised no radical environmentalist has come up with this idea before. Maybe Greenpeace will start an "end divorce, save a whale" media blitz. ;) Or maybe "pop the question, save a seqouia."
21. Shelley said the following at 7:40 AM on Dec 6:
Very logical point when it comes to the more people in a household sharing resources. It averages out to a lesser usage per person. Maybe not on the line of water usage for shower, but food for 1 or food for 10 is held in the same refrigerator and cooked on the same stove/in the microwave...lights on in a house for 1-10 people in the living room... Unless it's just a bigger house. Then you have more resources. I digress...haha...
I have a roomie. She and I split the cost of gas/water/electricity/rent. VERY cost effective. Wouldn't be if we each lived alone. Be happy to contribute to being green along the way regardless of living with a roomie or hopefully (my desire) getting married some day. Each little part helps. I haven't turned on my heater or air in two months now. Bills are GREAT this time of year!
22. Marla said the following at 7:49 AM on Dec 6:
I think the idea is that a one person household may, on average, use more energy/resources than 1/4 of a 4 person household. There aren't any communal resources because there is no one else living there; the energy used to warm the apartment is the same for one as for two, a single tv doesn't use less power just because only one person is watching it, etc. Whereas, in a household, these energy costs are pooled together. While some expenses may be higher (more electricity/water, for example), overall, it's more efficient per capita.
23. Patty said the following at 8:09 AM on Dec 6:
Certainly marriage might be of benefit to the environment, but not something I would consider when deciding to marry or not!
24. Carrie said the following at 8:15 AM on Dec 6:
The relationship to "Get Married: Go Green" isn't associated with where you keep your thermostat. It's the quantity of use that's been compared. A household of four, live in ONE house with ONE washer. Four households of one, lives in FOUR houses with FOUR washer. Obviously the consumption is greater in these areas and alike.
I have two roommates and we keep our thermostat at a reasonably comfortable level. (Thankfully!) The difference is that we consume energy in one location instead of three and therefore consume less.
Ah, and yes another reason, that I'll be sure to share with my beau! *wink wink*
25. Louise said the following at 8:34 AM on Dec 6:
Okay, then you have me convinced.
Which of you would like to move in with me?
Cat lovers only, please.
Or is he bad for the environment, too, along with single huamns?
26. Louise said the following at 8:40 AM on Dec 6:
Yes, I have my own washer/dryer but since I live alone it is used much less than it would be in a household of four.
And yes, I do wait until I have a full washer to do the laundry.
27. Dan said the following at 8:50 AM on Dec 6:
"Adding more people creates an economy of scale." - kman
Kman is 100% correct in this statement. What bothers me, though, is that it took researchers time and research money to figure it out. This is a basic concept in Econ 101!
28. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:35 AM on Dec 6:
I agree that the advice given can send the wrong message, which is focusing too much on the environment. Using similar logic I could also say:
- Go Green: Have only 1 child or better yet no children at all (because kids use up lots of resources)
- Go Green: Get an abortion (for reasons similar to the above)
- Go Green: Live like the Amish without cars/electricity because cars and coal burning power plants contribute greenhouse gases electricity provided
This is not to say the science or numbers behind conclusion are false, but that one always has to be careful about what message is being portrayed. A more effective message would probably be something along the lines of "Another benefit of marriage: Consuming less resources"
29. frannie said the following at 11:13 AM on Dec 6:
Go Green: Marry Your girlfriend
I say this because I keep my apartment at a chilly 62/64 degrees, but my boyfriend comes over and shivers pathetically until I turn it up. All while heating his own apartment that he only sleeps in (although he has a roommate).
30. Anastasia said the following at 4:37 PM on Dec 6:
Are you people serious about buying the unscientific claptrap of global warming?
How about trusting God to have created a magnificent planet that would accommodate lots of people (He said to be fruitful and multiply) and the "waste" and "carbon" they produce.
Sheesh, people, live counterculturally like the Bible says already!
31. Whitney said the following at 4:59 PM on Dec 6:
This is ridiculous. As people before have said, Go Green, get a roommate. Besides, your $14,000 will probably offset your first five years of energy savings.
32. farmer Tom said the following at 5:10 PM on Dec 6:
Louise had the following to say on Dec 6 at 5:32 AM:
Overpopulation is very harmful to the planet, so anyone serious about "doing your duty to the planet" would not be actively against the option of using birth control.
Louise,
I'm warning you and anybody else that reads the following comments that what I'm about to say is offensive, but your attitude about human life is an abomination to me and to any student of Scripture.
I assume that according to your gospel of mother earth (Gaia
"Earth as a goddess," from Gk. Gaia, personification of gaia "earth," a collateral form of ge (Dorian ga) "earth," of unknown origin.) mankind is the equivalent of Satan? Man it the ultimate threat to mother Gaia, right?
Have you taken the ultimate step of devotion to mother earth yet??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879
Funny thing Louise, your ideas are all at odds with what the Scripture teaches about man and his relationship to the earth, but you don't really care do you? Mother earth is your god, right?
33. Louise said the following at 6:39 PM on Dec 6:
No, farmer Tom I have not had myself sterilized, and probably never will.
Among other things, I am afraid of general anesetia (spelled wrong I know).
And may I remind your sir, the use of birth control does not mean someone never wants to have children.
At times it means the couple wants to have some control over their fertility, deciding when to have children and when the family is complete.
You stated in another thread you had four children. Well, my good man, what is wrong with you? Why didn't you go for a quiver full? Don't you believe in a the Lord's blessings?
And as for me viewing the "mother earth" as a god..if I were to choose a pagan god it would definitely be the Almighty Dollar!
I don't know where you get your ideas.
34. AD said the following at 10:08 PM on Dec 6:
Farmer Tom,
I often agree with your opinions and can sympathize with your perspective, but I do feel uncomfortable with the tone you often use, which sounds to me overly aggressive and sarcastic. We all are interested in your thoughts, but would you consider writing in a gentler, more respectful voice? I think it might help us hear your message more clearly if we weren't distracted by its frustrating packaging.
35. JB said the following at 11:06 PM on Dec 6:
Anastasia,
It's interesting you brought that up. I assume you're referring to Genesis 9:7 - "As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Depending on how literal you like your scripture, the Earth's population is either 60 times or 750 million times what it was when that command was issued. Either way, it's hard to think of any other of God's commands humanity has followed so well.
Just logically, though, that can't be a command without limit. We're to multiply on the earth, sure, but God has seen fit to make the Earth finite and with limited resources. So at some point, presumably, we will have sufficiently multiplied and increased and the Earth will be unable to support more of us. That would mean that the discussion about population control doesn't turn on whether or not to follow God's command to multiply, but rather on empirical data concerning resource availability and consumption. It seems to me that there's a place for concerns about pollution and overpopulation in an environmental theology.
36. Marc said the following at 11:14 PM on Dec 6:
Farmer Tom,
I know what you're trying to say, but the way you worded it was totally unnecessary and you know it (e.g. "...what I'm about to say is offensive...").
I'm not one to be the "blog police", but this borderline-hateful response to Lousie's post is uncalled for.
37. jarrod said the following at 12:24 AM on Dec 7:
farmer Tom,
i think this is neither the time or place for your rants. Louise is adding helpful comments and yours are neither loving nor helpful. overpopulation is a problem in most third world countries. is extreme poverty, malnutrition and disease part of Gods great desire for his creation? Is the spread of aids?
this kind of abuse and arrogance you possess aint on... iceberg dead ahead brother
38. Louise said the following at 6:12 AM on Dec 7:
Oh, so my belief that people should have the option to use birth control is an abominable belief, huh?
Well, hey it runs in the family. My parents used birth control, so I guess I inherited their abominable tendencies.
Moderators, why do you approve these insulting posts from this farmer Tom person?
But... he's ultra conservative, so it's fine for him to insult anyone he doesn't agree with.
Your bias is showing folks.
And one more thing...to the lady who posted she wastes energy by living alone becaause she leaves the house and there is no one there no turn them off for her (pick up for her, as it were)....it really isn't difficult to make sure you have everything turned off before you leave the house!
I do it all the time.
The first sentence of this post is blatantly incorrect, "The best thing you can do for the environment is get married".
I don't know what the best thing would be (probably live like the Amish, but with birth control, most likely) but getting married is not the best thing.
The "economies of scale" would apply to roommate arrangements as well.
39. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:15 AM on Dec 7:
Being fully aware of the irony of asking this from a computer, what's wrong with living like the Amish? They use less resources, have lots of kids, are good stewards of God's land, whats not to respect?
40. Louise said the following at 8:43 AM on Dec 7:
There is nothing "wrong" with living like the Amish.
It would not be a wise choice for those who do not have a talent for farming, however.
41. Patricia Hampson said the following at 9:35 AM on Dec 7:
I have to agree with Farmer Tom's remarks. I think it's important to remember that online it is impossible to see facial expressions and body language so the words we use must be carefully considered. Many of this poster's remarks seem to lack Christian charity and humility, at times when the other poster is trying to make a substantive point.
42. Carrie (the original) said the following at 9:50 AM on Dec 7:
In response to Louise . . . Boundless is bias and yet they still post your comments.
Fascinating.
Anyhow, yes farmertom was a tad "offensive" if your used to people to skirting around issues so as to hope one catches the vibe of what you're saying without actually saying what they are thinking.
Personally, I'm all for direct and "coming out with it".
As far as the actual topic of this thread and the point of why Boundless exists at all (why, oh why, must this be pointed out!?): they are driving home the point that we are meant for relationship for one another and are encouraging us towards the benefits of marriage!!
Goodness gracious, don't lose sight of the big picture, people.
Louise, your overall negative view of marriage is a little taxing. I really wish you would be more charitable towards the idea. I know I can be very bitter towards the idea of marriage and your posts don't really spur me on toward love and good deeds.
43. Louise said the following at 10:01 AM on Dec 7:
Carrie, I assure you not all of my comments appear on this blog.
I have had several that were not approved by the moderators.
Yet, farmer Tom's insulting comments (towards several other posters besides me, I may note) are approved.
I am not the only one on this blog who has commented on this phenomenon.
44. Louise said the following at 10:07 AM on Dec 7:
Check out the Nov. 21 thread "The Biblical Role of the Govt. Primer".
An entirely different poster commented on the bias.
45. farmer Tom said the following at 12:04 PM on Dec 7:
Lousie, and the rest of you,
what I said that was offensive was removed from my post by the moderator, I don't like that fact because I had a point to make about your worldview and it was edited,
but, you did not answer my question,
show me from Scripture where you can defend your environmentalist tendencies.
JB, I'm so excited to see that you can count, but your attitude toward Scripture is suspect, your quote "be fruitful and multiply" then you say, "hath God really said"
We as humans have not begun to approach the limits of the resources God made on this planet.
As I said last week, the entire population of the world could live in the state of Texas having more square ft per person than the typical city dweller in Mexico City or Rio. There are incredibly vast sources of untaped energy like hydrogen power that can provide fuel for our future.
My response was directed at Louise because a man (Ted) is celebrating the coming birth of his child and her response is to call for more birth control. That is a wicked response. Children are an heritage from the Lord, Ted has been blessed.
46. Louise said the following at 12:22 PM on Dec 7:
Farmer tom, you never cease to amaze me.
You really do have a unique talent for confusing various issues.
Have you ever considered going into politics? You'd be a source of constant amusement to everyone.
And moderators again, why do you approve these posts by farmer Tom that are personally insulting to people?
47. Carrie (the original) said the following at 12:48 PM on Dec 7:
I'm on Boundless quite often and I have read many people claiming that Boundless is biased.
For those of you the may be weary and not able to trace all the logic, I'll sum up the miscommunication.
Louise: "Overpopulation is very harmful to the planet, so anyone serious about "doing your duty to the planet" would not be actively against the option of using birth control."
(in other words: if we just stop reproducing [an anti-biblical concept], then we can save the planet. She failed to mention which form[s] of birth control she was referring to [abortion, the pill, condoms, the calendar method, abstinence]. By not articulating which specific from, she is leaving too many moral implications open for interpretation and (involuntarily??) implying all sorts of things that just shouldn't be done by Christians seeking to be pure.)
FarmerTom: "Funny thing Louise, your ideas are all at odds with what the Scripture teaches about man and his relationship to the earth, but you don't really care do you? Mother earth is your god, right?"
(He is pointing out the obvious. Many people like to avoid doing this because it comes out sounding . . . like farmerTom. He's asking a question and [I'm assuming] really desiring a response of some type.)
Louise: "Oh, so my belief that people should have the option to use birth control is an abominable belief, huh? . . . . The first sentence of this post is blatantly incorrect, "The best thing you can do for the environment is get married".
I don't know what the best thing would be (probably live like the Amish, but with birth control, most likely) but getting married is not the best thing."
(Here, we see that Louise just wants to live how she wants to live. She seems tired of Boundless telling her that she might be sinning by keeping her current lifestyle. I often wonder, if she gets so offended why does she keep reading this blog??)
FarmerTom: My response was directed at Louise because a man (Ted) is celebrating the coming birth of his child and her response is to call for more birth control. That is a wicked response. Children are an heritage from the Lord, Ted has been blessed.i>
(This is a little harsh, but I think if the shoe fits . . .)
48. Justin said the following at 1:01 PM on Dec 7:
I actually like this justification for getting married. It's better a lot of other reasons I read on this blog.
As for birth control. My parents grew up not believing in birth control, until they had their seventh child, and then they suddenly decided to start believing in it. Funny how that works.
49. Christina said the following at 2:40 PM on Dec 7:
Ack so much negativity going on in here.
One question I have pertaining to the command to "be fruitful and multiply"...you think God put a limit on how much you should obey him? You don't think God gave us enough resources to last until the end of the world (seeing as he DOES actually know how many people are going to live on this earth...cuz ummm...he had them in mind before the beginning of time)? Two things that your doing in claiming that we should stop reproducing because its harmful to the environment:
1) Limiting God's power to know the limits of his creation and his power to provide.
2) Raising your own logic above God's commands by claiming that God was wrong that we should KEEP obeying him.
There were no stipulations on our being fruitful and multiplying except this: Take care of what God has given you.
Now about birth control, the example that I saw mentioned above has little to do with environment, but everything to do with whether people are capable of parenting - two seperate issues. And yes, I do think birth control should be used to keep children out of the hands of those unfit to be parents...but the best bc i can think of is this - abstinence. If you can't deal with the potential consequences of the actions, then don't do it.
Louise,
I honestly find you tend to be much more irrational in your beating up on people than farmer tom. And that's just what DOES get published. You don't know if boundless rejects Farmer Tom's posts because, well, simply put...they don't get posted. I'm a rather patient and non-confrontational person, but you make me desperately want to throw my computer out the window...Farmer tom just makes me want to either logically respond, or turn off the computer because he's being a stubborn fool looking for a reaction.
50. Patricia Hampson said the following at 2:52 PM on Dec 7:
Carrie,
I think thought that Louise didn't say all people should use birth control, just that Christians should't foreclose the option. And while she didn't specify which forms, I'd assume that she didn't include abortion since abortion is not a form of birth control, at least not in common usage of the term. Frankly, i think assusing someone of worshiping mother earth because they use birht control is far fetched. I am against birth control other than NFP but don't think that Christians that use it are always worshiping mother earth.
51. Adam D said the following at 7:55 PM on Dec 7:
Louise, I bet you'd be happy to know that the NWO is working on making a better world for all of us... well the 500 million that will be in the new world order. The rest of the 5.5 billion will be extinguished somehow to make this a safer, better, healthier world for all of those lucky enough to survive.
52. BDB said the following at 1:01 AM on Dec 8:
Hmmmm...I think I'll stir the pot a little...
Yes, God can tell creation to "be fruitful and multiply," and we can assume that God knows exactly how many people the Earth can support.
At the same time, we also know that the world ends in war - see revelation. It just occurred to me that maybe the world does someday run into food or oil problems, that trigger those wars...
53. Carrie (the original one) said the following at 6:38 AM on Dec 8:
A recently married friend of mine surmised her view on birth control quite nicely: " . . . sex is for having babies."
She grew quite weary of doing all the research on all the different methods of birth control trying to figure out which one would work best. She and her husband want to have "lots of babies", but she wants to finish grad school first. . . 1 1/2 more years. As soon as she gets her diploma in her hand, the pills are going in the trash.
We all have different stories and mine will not include birth control methods of any type after I get married (fyi, current method: abstinence). Some people do find birth control helpful and the best way to exercise dominion of what the Lord has given them. However, birth control is not something that should be taken lightly (and I'm thankful my friend actually ached over her decision and didn't take it lightly). Too many people go into marriage with the "We'll have kids when we're ready" mentality, not realizing that you can't ever be "ready" for children. My friend knows that she'll get sanctified through children. She just wants to finish what was put in front of her before she started dating.
54. Sara said the following at 10:55 AM on Dec 8:
Genesis 9:7 or 9:1 doesn't say 'be fruitful and multiply'. It says 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'. What 'full' means is open to interpretation. Personally, I'd say it's when thousands of people aren't being fed everyday, but again, everyone will think something different. It's misleading for anyone to quote only the first part of that verse, 'be fruitful and multiply'.
Other translations have something like, "Spread over the earth" or, "become great in number". As for that, I think we can say, 'done'.
55. Louise said the following at 11:15 AM on Dec 8:
What does "NWO" stand for?
56. Melody said the following at 12:04 PM on Dec 8:
Wow, after reading all of these posts it is clear there are a lot of strong opinions! Genesis 1:28 is where God tells us to "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air and every living thing that moves on the earth." He also gave us all the plants. From scripture I see that God created the earth for us as humans and that we have the position of being responsible stewards over it, but 1 Cor 10:26 says the earth is the Lord's and the fullness therof quoting from the Psalms. We were created to bring glory to God and he gave us the earth and its resources to do that. Filling the earth with children is a privilege God gave us, but whether to use birth control is one of those areas in scripture that God doesn't comment specifically on. I think it would be helpful to let each have his or her Christian freedom and allow that decision to be made between spouses and God because that is sure not something I can or want to judge others for. Let's give each other some grace on this, please?
Since the curse has been put on the earth for most of its existence it is not possible to do a perfect job in tending it but I believe that if we do the best we can according to what God convicts us of then we can stand before him and not be ashamed. Yes, having larger households saves on energy and some other things, I think that is great but in our quest to be responsible stewards let's not point fingers and accuse people we only know through what they type, it is neither edifying nor encouraging. How about seeking God on what he would have us do and praying for one another that they would also seek God's will and follow it? I think that if we seek God with a devotion that Jesus called for (Matt 22:37-40) God could show us each how best to serve him in all areas of life, including how we use our resources.
2 Cor 13:11 "Finally brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you." One more... Col 4:6 "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person." Let us try to keep this in perspective. What kind of witness is it to others when we can't have respectful discussions between ourselves? Please consider this and pray about it and then do what God says! I strive toward this and fail daily - already have once today, so don't think I have this down, this was what God is teaching me about my strong opinions and I have a long way yet to go.
57. Amanda L said the following at 3:32 PM on Dec 8:
Woah, a lot of conterversy over this issue, I see.
It doesn't seem that the article was written to be taken so seriously.
Believe it or not, my brothers and I, by staying home and splitting the rent with our parents, use very little more power and water than when one of us was loving away from hom.
We all use one washer and dryer, one dishwasher, one vehicle, etc. As opposed to if we were all moved out and using 4 washers and dryers in total. I agree with the science of the article.
And hey, another reason to encourage marriage in our generation...sweet!
:) :)
58. JB said the following at 5:14 PM on Dec 8:
Tom, Christina, BDB,
I'm just making the conceptual point that it's not that case that population control could never be a biblically valid position. And I say this because (a) God's command to multiply was given for a clear reason (to fill the Earth), (b) on a long enough time frame continued population growth could be counterproductive to the goal of maintaining a maximum human population, and (c) the command to multiply, taken to its farthest extreme, would seem to conflict with the command to be stewards of creation. So, suppose that it becomes clear that the Earth can support a population of 10 billion people indefinitely, but if the population increases beyond that environmental destruction and population collapse will occur. In such a situation, I think the biblical thing to do would be to limit the population at 10 billion people, because doing otherwise would both harm creation and fail to allow us to "fill the Earth." Now, of course the Earth might not make it long enough for that to become an issue, but you and I can't know that. The upshot is that I don't think you can automatically dismiss population control advocates on the argument that they're being unbiblical. Rather, I think the argument needs to happen at the level of science and economics with the goal of prioritizing human good, but not at undue expense to the environment.
59. Kit said the following at 10:32 PM on Dec 8:
Interesting post. While getting married may be one way to help the environment, it is certainly not the only one, nor would I agree that it is the best one.
People who use birth control are not unbiblical. Sometimes I can't believe the posts on here! God said to multiply, yes, but he did not say to do so with reckless abandon. Each person should decide what they want to do, but, no one should feel as though they are "sinning" because they decided to use birth control. Carrie, your friend's reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Either they are using it or they aren't. If they wanted to be consistent, they should just have waited to get married until she was done with school. They too are waiting until they are "ready."
60. Jo said the following at 7:33 AM on Dec 9:
Hmm. Contraception isn't an issue that I've considered in detail, but the comments on this post have stirred up a few thoughts...
First, God has ALREADY placed limitations on the command,'Be fruitful and multiply'. Be fruitful and multiply... only within marriage, not with close relatives, not with non-Christians. Also, the command was given to Adam and Eve and there could be an argument that it was given JUST to those two people. If you disagree with that (which I personally do), then it was given to the human race as a whole - not to me, or Louise, or any other individual person, since not all people are ABLE to have children, and others are called to a life of celibacy. I don't think it's stretching too much to suggest that the decision not to have children might be a valid one (in our day and age where we have a degree of control) - IF done for the right reasons and with prayerful consideration.
Examples:
Two disabled people get married. If they were to have children they would be unable to care for them without a great deal of outside help. OF COURSE it would not be wrong for them to decide to have children anyway. But would it be wrong for them to decide not to?
I want children. I REALLY want children. However, for reasons I won't go into, it may end up not being medically wise for me to have my own children. OF COURSE god is bigger than all these things and I don't know what the future holds for me in that regard. But I may end up deciding to adopt instead. Would that be wrong?
A married couple in a war-torn area decide that bringing children into their situation would be unwise and even selfish. Is this wrong?
All those examples would involve some kind of contraception. Yes, you might argue that those examples are 'unusual' or 'exceptional' - however when you are saying that God ABSOLUTELY commands something, you need to be able to apply it to ALL situations. If contraception is wrong, it is wrong in all circumstances. If however you concede that it might be right in some circumstances, you need a much better reason for condemning Louise's choice.
Just for the record, I understand contraception to mean contraception, not abortion or the morning after pill (which is also abortion). Once a baby is conceived, in my opinion, all the above arguments go out the window because the decision has already been made, by God.
61. Jo said the following at 7:42 AM on Dec 9:
farmer Tom:
I think equating a decision not to have children with worship of mother earth is a ridiculous leap. You can say 'I think you made this choice for the wrong reasons' (and you may even be right) without attacking the sincerity of Louise's faith, of which you have absolutely no knowledge beyond what you see here. I'm almost amused that the offensive post we all read was the censored version. I hate to think what you actually wrote.
Also, unless I'm missing something, Louise did not ever respond to Ted's news that his wife is pregnant with a call for more contraception. The two topics are completely unrelated. If you're implying that Louise is unhappy about ANYONE having children, just because she herself has decided not to, I think that is again a ridiculous leap to make. If Louise did ever make this link herself, please show me where.
62. obewan said the following at 7:53 AM on Dec 10:
Farmer Tom:
You Said:
”We as humans have not begun to approach the limits of the resources God made on this planet.
There are incredibly vast sources of untaped (sic) energy like hydrogen power that can provide fuel for our future.”\
Do you have a PhD in geophysics or petroleum engineering? I think many of the worlds’ leading experts would beg to differ with your outrageous statement. I am surprised it got by the moderators, but again it shows the strong bias at this blog. I have cited Google sources contrary to yours, and had them edited out. However, even the sources posted by Focus in rebuttal stated that we only have 50 years left on our oil supply. (Per the DOE) With China and India scoffing up so much more oil, severe shortages are expected long before that. In 2004, Gulf Western spent $4 billion on offshore drilling exploration and only found $1 billion worth of new oil reserves. Mexico is slated to run out of oil (bone dry) in only 9 more years. Mexico is the number two supplier to the US.
The oil embargos of the 1970’s demonstrated that it only takes a shortage of 10% for the price of energy to quadruple. It goes without saying that economic chaos will ensue when the worldwide shortage occurs.
As for hydrogen, you need to revisit your High School chemistry class. It is not a free source, and does not exist naturally. It takes a huge amount of energy to split water into hydrogen. Hydrogen can be made using petroleum or natural gas, but that just converts the energy form. (And we have a fossil fuel shortage). What about using nuclear power to produce hydrogen? The hydrogen is just an energy storage medium – like a battery. A battery would be more efficient. The so-called “hydrogen economy” is currently just a pipe dream that is bringing people a false hope in my opinion.
63. Ben said the following at 8:14 AM on Dec 10:
Well, everyone says "you should be married" - now there is another reason -
maybe I use that as a pick up - line "WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT WITH ME?" - or: "Do you want to improve your footprint? ME too..."
What all these people don't tell me is where I can find a girl that is single, not too old, I am at least a bit interested in
AND
willing to help me save the climate
before I am too old to attract a young woman
So this information is pretty much useless...Sorry
64. a sassy sister said the following at 8:46 AM on Dec 10:
Carrie,
please clarify what you mean by "sanctified by children". Do you mean that one achieves spiritual sanctification through childbearing? I'm not trying to pick a bone here, just confused by what you posted.
65. Adam D said the following at 9:24 AM on Dec 10:
I like to hear what people have to say about population control and overcrowding and using Genesis to back up their ideals because it is certainly not a clear topic and i'm not sure if anyone has a truly correct answer to it. But in any case, as I understand it, only 3% of the earth's surface is habitable for man. After the great flood a lot of things happened that would have destroyed and rearranged the entire surface of the earth, and the evidence is in geology when you examine rock formations and evidence of rapid erosion in the middle of deserts. Anyways, I don't really know how applicable the genesis statement to fill the earth is because I'm sure more than 3% of the earth was habitable before the flood, evidenced by leaves, trees, plants and mammoths and dinosaurs all fossilized at the poles, indicating the climate wasn't always cold up there.
I personally don't think there is any threat of overpopulation because you can fit all the people of the world in jacksonville florida two times over. Food shortages come about with poor planning, wasteful consumption, and war. Controlling food has always been a part war. The instabilities in certain countries is what creates food shortages, not the land's inability to grow crops, and certainly not it being that there are too many people eating. If where you live is too overcrowded, then move somewhere where it isn't as crowded. Go to Nebraska or something.
66. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:08 AM on Dec 10:
a sassy sister,
Perhaps a quote from one of the women in my church will help clarify what I meant: "One way or another, God will sanctify you". So, yes, I do mean that one is sanctified through child-bearing, although (of course) not completely. Child-bearing and child-rearing are two ways that God uses in order to sanctify those whom He loves. Although it's not the only way, they are two of the most common ways.
Sanctification is a process that won't be complete until He returns.
67. Loris said the following at 2:33 PM on Dec 10:
I'm probably going to get eaten alive for this, but I'm going to jump into the contraception confusion. Out of my married friends, there are those who use the NFP method, others who eschew drugs but use IUDs, and those who are on birth control. In the case of the NFP couple, they researched many methods of birth control and rejected them because they had a tiny possibility of being abortive. My friends who use devices have tried birth control pills and it made them sick. I am on birth control pills because my husband and I have agreed on this method. Whatever the method, all of us share the view that yes, the Lord brings children when he wishes, but in the meantime, it is poor stewardship of time, money, and the marriage relationship (and yes, the earth) to have a child until the Lord either causes a pregnancy directly or moves the couple to try to have a baby.
68. Christina said the following at 2:27 PM on Dec 12:
BDB,
no amount of population control is going to keep that from happening if we believe that revelation is going to actually happen as written. It will happen no matter what you and the rest of the world does to prevent more people from being born.
I used to believe that my "calling" in life was to be a good mother (though I haven't had the oppurtunity to exercise that). I struggled with what kind of an impact that would be, and then I realized that, no, I can't do a whole lot for the world as one person (especially since my dream is to be a stay at home mom), but in raising godly children, there's now 5+ God-fearing people standing on God's principles that can do more than one person could.