Humans Were Meant to Be Here: Guest Column

We are a blessing to be preserved, multiplied, and redeemed.

For a long time, if you encountered a writer warning about declining global birth rates, it was a safe bet you were reading a right-leaning or Christian publication. But that appears to be changing. In the last couple of years, mainstream news outlets seem to have caught on that the problem civilization now faces is not too many but too few babies, and some are sounding the alarm. Recent stories in The SpectatorThe New York Times, and The Washington Post all clearly describe why a shrinking and aging society is a bad thing and try to identify the causes behind this population “bust.” 

The fear of a population “bomb” haunts mainstream psyche greatly due to Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb, where he famously declared in the opening line that, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” and predicted mass starvation due to overpopulation.  

This of course never happened, and in fact, global food production vastly outpaced population growth, making it easier than ever to feed everyone. Facts aside, the baby-banning ideology persists. 

Earlier this month, The Washington Post editorial board ran a response to the surge of critical comments they’ve received on stories about declining birth rates. As anyone familiar with the comments section under controversial (or really any) articles can imagine, a litany of bad arguments had been unfolding. One commenter wrote that, “Endless growth—whether that’s of the population or the economy—is an unachievable fantasy.” Another declared, “Now is the time to reject growthist ideology for good.” Many cited climate change, overcrowding and, of course, running out of food as reasons to encourage lower birth rates.  

The Post did a surprisingly nice job of refuting these. It pointed out that having more young and creative minds is precisely how mankind has enjoyed an unprecedented technological boom over the last two centuries: “Ingenuity and innovation have repeatedly empowered humanity to overcome ecological constraints,” and have “liberated much of humanity from misery.”  

Imposing population constraints on developing nations would also, it said, “amount to a kind of environmental imperialism,” denying to poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America precisely the opportunities for growth and improved living standards that richer, western countries have long enjoyed. And, they added, there is simply no evidence it would help the environment:   

Productivity growth can take the world in directions that are benign for the physical and social environment. Growth can mean less pollution, more forests and better health. 

Of course, the real reason The Post caught flak from many of its readers wasn’t environmentalism or economics, but something better described as a “mood” instilled in the popular imagination by books like The Population Bomb and in a host of sci-fi moviesIt’s a sense, seemingly shared by more today than ever before, that humans are bad, that our activity is inherently exploitative, and that the world would be better off with fewer of us. 

In this way of thinking, people are a disease on the planet—a species whose inventions have allowed us to bypass the checks and balances of natural selection and multiply out of control. In short, we don’t really belong here; not in such high numbers. And a large reduction in our population could only be beneficial.  

But what if human beings are good, actually? Not in a moral sense, but in the sense that we’re meant to be here? What if this world was specifically designed to support us and thrive under human stewardship? What if the way we continually defy the doomsday predictions of writers like Ehrlich through innovation and discovery shows that we are more than just another species devouring resources? 

This, of course, is exactly how the Bible describes human beings. And it’s why, despite the race’s fallen condition, Christians view human life as a blessing to be preserved, multiplied, and redeemed; and the human mind and spirit as resources more inexhaustible than any material we consume. 

We bear a certain resemblance to our Maker in that we can, in our limited and creaturely way, also create. Which is why a lack of new humans is not good news, and why I’m happy to see that some mainstream publications are starting to realize this—even if The Population Bomb still haunts their comments sections. 

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Shane Morris. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Screentime in Schools: Guest Column

More local and state governments, from both sides of the political aisle, are acknowledging the harmful effects of cellphones in schools and adopting policies to limit their use.  

Last year, Florida passed a law to ban the use of cellphones in classrooms. In April, Governor Eric Holcomb of Indiana signed a bill to prohibit students from using cellphones except for learning purposes and in cases of emergencies. In June, the Los Angeles school board adopted a ban that will take effect at the beginning of next year. Some school districts have issued similar policies, and many others are at least having the debate

These policies are long overdue. Smartphones are not only distracting, but they also affect brain development. According to one long-term study published in January 2023, adolescents who check their phones regularly for notifications experience change in “how their brains respond to the world around them.” Among other things, they tend to be hypersensitive to peers’ reactions and engage in compulsive social media activity.  

In 2018, Jean Twenge noted that teens who spend more time behind screens are at a higher risk for depression. Since 2012, the year when most Americans became smartphone owners, teens’ mental health has been in decline. One study found that, after just seven minutes of scrolling on Instagram, young women showed decreased body satisfaction and negative emotional state.  

To be clear, this is not just a matter of content. As Jonathan Haidt argued

Content moderation is to some extent a red herring, a distraction from larger issues. Yes, it must be done and done better, but even if these platforms could someday remove 95% of harmful content, the platforms will still be harmful to kids.  

Social media companies have long known about these harms, but they have failed to offer much help to minors or their parents. As mother of five and CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Dawn Hawkins noted, “The parental controls do not work. They’ve designed these platforms without parents in mind.” For example, 32 steps are required on Apple devices to set up parental controls.  

The ubiquity of smartphones, social media, and the internet has created, in Haidt’s words, a collective action problem for our children. That’s a situation in which many people would benefit from a particular course of action, but if only one person or small group of people chooses that course of action, it will not be beneficial, but costly. The result? Without collective action, no individual is likely to take any action.  

In recent years, groups of Christians, including families, have joined together to take the “Postman Pledge,” a year-long commitment to raise kids without phones and in community with one another. While good and creative, these grassroots efforts have limits—especially for those who can’t afford to homeschool their kids or send them to private schools that share their convictions. 

The move by states to help parents protect their kids at school is helpful for just these families. To be sure, state regulation is never a replacement for good parenting or good community. Even in school districts where smartphones are restricted, parents must help their teens use social media and smartphones wisely, in ways that limit their harmful effects. Parents and concerned community members must come together to figure out what is best for these students.  

What is clear is that these policies are providing a much needed aid for American families who would otherwise be powerless against the titans of big tech. Let’s hope more states follow suit.  

This Breakpoint  was co-authored by Jared Hayden. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.

Family Council Obtains Affidavits from Sponsors of Abortion, Marijuana, Casino License Repeal Measures

On Thursday Family Council received copies of the ballot initiative sponsor affidavits from Local Voters in Charge and Arkansans for Patient Access.

Local Voters in Charge is backing a measure that would repeal the Racing Commission’s authority to issue a casino license without local voter approval in a countywide election. Arkansans for Patient Access is sponsoring an amendment to expand medical marijuana in Arkansas.

On July 5, both groups submitted petition signatures to place their amendments on the ballot.

Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show that leaders from both groups filed affidavits with the Secretary of State attesting, among other things, about how each group conducted background checks and training for paid canvassers employed in the petition drives.

Act 1413 of 2013 specifically requires a ballot initiative’s sponsor to list any paid canvassers employed in collecting signatures, and it requires them to file a statement confirming that each paid canvasser was given a copy of the state’s initiative and referenda handbook as well as an explanation of relevant state laws before he or she solicited petition signatures.

Under Arkansas law, paid petition canvassers must be residents of Arkansas. They must pass a criminal background check, and their information must be properly recorded with the Secretary of State’s office.

The affidavit from Local Voters in Charge is available here.

The affidavit from Arkansans for Patient Access is available here.

Family Council also received documents that Arkansans for Limited Government — the group backing an abortion measure in Arkansas — filed with the Secretary of State concerning its abortion amendment petition.

The documents included an affidavit stating the number of petition signatures submitted, but the affidavit did not include a statement concerning how the organization background-checked and trained its paid canvassers.

The group submitted some 101,525 petition signatures to place the measure on the ballot on July 5. However, the Secretary of State disqualified every petition signature, because Arkansans for Limited Government failed to provide affidavits from the measure’s sponsor concerning paid canvassers as required by state law.

In his letter notifying the group about the disqualification, Secretary of State Thurston pointed out that no other initiative sponsors failed to provide an affidavit concerning paid canvassers.

On Tuesday Arkansans for Limited Government sued the Arkansas Secretary of State for rejecting its petitions. The lawsuit called his rejection “unlawful,” and asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to count the petition signatures for the abortion amendment.

Arkansans for Limited Government previously submitted documents to the Secretary of State showing it employed 265 paid petition canvassers over the course of its petition drive — including more than 70 paid canvassers hired within 48 hours of the July 5 signature deadline.

Legal experts have pointed out the abortion amendment would prevent the State of Arkansas from restricting abortion during the first five months of pregnancy — which is more extreme than Roe v. Wade — and would allow thousands of elective abortions on healthy women and unborn children every year.

The amendment does not contain any medical licensing or health and safety standards for abortion, and it does not require abortions to be performed by a physician or in a licensed medical facility.

It automatically nullifies all state laws that conflict with the amendment, jeopardizing basic abortion regulations — like parental-consent and informed-consent requirements that both sides of the aisle have supported in the past.

The measure also contains various exceptions that would permit abortion through all nine months of pregnancy in many cases.

The lawsuit over the Secretary of State’s rejection of the abortion amendment petitions is currently before the Arkansas Supreme Court. Family Council will continue to monitor and report on the case.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.