Hurray! 300 Million!

I don't think of myself as a contrarian, but lately I find myself disagreeing with the mainstream on nearly everything. Here is another one: "300 Million Reasons For Concern." The "wise" people at the Washington Post are concerned about the number of people in the world. This actually makes me sad because the thinking is so flawed.

Let me start by saying this - people are a good thing. Remember when God finished creating Adam and Eve He said, "and saw that it was good." We are made in the image of God and our existence is a good thing. After creating man and woman God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1:28) That was the first thing God ever said to mankind. God wanted us to fill the earth with people!

This concern reveals something about the person who is concerned about population growth - they actually don't like people. Sure - they don't want to see their friends and family removed from the earth, but they're more than happy to see most other people's friends and family removed from the earth. This is a violent and hateful perspective.

Where does this perspective come from? If God thinks people are a good thing and wants to see them fill the earth who would want to see them destroyed? Enemies of God.

God's enemy hates God and hates His creation. And if God loves His people as His crowning achievement, you can bet that God's enemy will hate that good thing and seek to destroy it. And that's what's going on - the devil hates humanity and hates to see the good that comes as a result of our existence.

Why do you think God wanted to fill the earth with people? I think that the answer is powerful and a beautiful revelation of the awesome character of God. I've said before that God loves our prosperity and wants us to live happy, healthy, comfortable lives. He wants good for the people that He has created - He does not desire squalor or misery for any of us. Would you want those kinds of miseries for any of your children? Of course not - we want good for our children, God wants good for His.

The short answer to why God wants to fill the earth is that we need each other to help make our lives better. Ask the people who want to limit population who they want to see removed. Of course not their friends and family, but what about their grocer? They need that guy for food. What about the guy that built their house? The kind of needed him too, so lets not kill him. What about the guy that built their car, or their computer, or their TV, or their hospital, or the people that created all the technological innovations that keep them healthy? They need those people too. Better not reduce population with any of those people.

Maybe we could get rid of the other grocers though, do we need so many? Well, if we didn't have so many prices sure would be a lot higher. Lots of people create lots of innovation, competition, and growth. The point is, each person brings something to this world that makes it better for others. All lives are important. (except for maybe the Washtington Post writer who wants to end the lives of others).

I've talked about wealth a time or two in this blog. Many people think of wealth as a lot of money, or something to that effect. The real source of wealth is the human spirit. It is the desire to experience something better and the innovation that flows from that. When a person gets up each day and goes to work, he succeeds by satisfying the needs of others. In this world, real success comes from taking care of your fellow man. And the more people that exist, the better things will be for each of us. Wealth is the product of the mind of man.

Resources are not limited by space or the capacity of the earth - they are limited by the minds of men who find and exploit them. We have oil because people have found it, retreived it, refined it, distributed it, and sold it - all to make a life for themselves and their families. Oil didn't just arrive at your gas station on its own - it required the hard work of people. People who Population Alarmists don't want around. Resources may be physically located in the earth, but they come from the mind of man.

We're not going to run out of space. Its just not even close to a problem! We've got gobs and gobs of space out there. So space, resources, overcrowding, starvation. They are not an overpopulation problem. This "problem" isn't about space or resources. Its a spiritual issue. It is about the fight between heaven and hell, good and evil. People are a good thing and more people are good for the earth. We don't need less people - we need more. (France gets it - read this article).

As each person seeks to build a life for himself - he brings his ability to take care of others to the marketplace - and those skills make all of our lives worth living. We need each other. We need each other's creativity. We need each other's hard work. We need each other's service. We need each other!

So I give thanks to God for the millions of people around the world who work tirelessly to solve my problems and make my life better. I'm grateful to God for recognizing the real wealth that lies within each person's mind and heart and for wanting us to have more of it and for giving the command "muliply" so that we could have more of it. Thank you God! People are such a blessing!

Technorati Tags:

Do Accidents Require Banning Freedom?

This article that I'm copying and pasting here needs to be heard. The cry for increasing restrictions on light airplanes is ludicrous. Accidents happen - why does every accident in aviation produce a public clamor for a loss of freedom. So now we want to ban all light aircraft operating over cities? What does that actually accomplish? Terrorists have all kinds of methods for inflicting harm, why ban just the airplanes?

Again, typical - the politician just uses any public "move" for an opportunity to remove freedom. Why, oh why do they always want to take away freedom?! Do they have no other option? Do they have no solution to any problem except by banning something? I am so sick of it!

So here is that article:

Enough is enough
Mayor Daley's latest rants have sent me
over the edge. He used the accident in New York to once again demand a no-fly
zone over downtown Chicago for general aviation aircraft.
It was expected,
of course. He has an irrational hatred for piston-engine aircraft, as evidenced
by his illogical tirade this week. "They should not jeopardize, through
intentionally or by accident, a single- or two-engine plane flying over our city
[sic]," the Meigs Field destroyer exploded at a press conference. (I don't think
he was including Boeing 737s, 757s, and 767s in his list of twin-engine
aircraft.) "Remember: a single- or two-engine plane can kill as many people as
possible if they want to."
And if it were just Daley, I'd ignore his ravings,
just as the folks in the federal government in charge of security and airspace
But it's not just him. Other politicians (with the spectacular and
notable exception of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg) and self-appointed
"experts" are jumping on the tragic accident — repeat, accident — in New York to
sound off again about the "danger" of light aircraft, and how they must be
regulated, restricted, banned.
OK, for all of those ranting about "threats"
from GA aircraft, we'll believe that you're really serious about controlling
"threats" when you call for:
Banning all vans within cities. A small panel
van was used in the first World Trade Center attack. The bomb, which weighed
1,500 pounds, killed six and injured 1,042.
Banning all box trucks from
cities. Timothy McVeigh's rented Ryder truck carried a 5,000-pound bomb that
killed 168 in Oklahoma City.
Banning all semi-trailer trucks. They can carry
bombs weighing more than 50,000 pounds.
Banning newspapers on subways.
That's how the terrorists hid packages of sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway
system. They killed 12.
Banning backpacks on all buses and subways. That's
how the terrorists got the bombs into the London subway system. They killed 52.
Banning all cell phones on trains. That's how they detonated the bombs in
backpacks placed on commuter trains in Madrid. They killed 191.
Banning all
small pleasure boats on public waterways. That's how terrorists attacked the USS
Cole, killing 17.
Banning all heavy or bulky clothing in all public places.
That's how suicide bombers hide their murderous charges. Thousands killed.
Number of people killed by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Number of people injured by a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
Property damage from a terrorist attack using a GA aircraft?
So Mr. Mayor (and Mr. Governor, Ms. Senator, Mr. Congressman, and Mr.
"Expert"), if you're truly serious about "protecting" the public, advocate all
of the bans I've listed above. Using the "logic" you apply to general aviation
aircraft, you're forced to conclude that newspapers, winter coats, cell phones,
backpacks, trucks, and boats all pose much greater risks to the public.
So be
consistent in your logic. If you are dead set on restricting a personal
transportation system that carries more passengers than any single airline,
reaches more American cities than all the airlines combined, provides employment
for 1.3 million American citizens and $160 billion in business "to protect the
public," then restrict or control every other transportation system that the
terrorists have demonstrated they can use to kill.
If you're not willing to
be consistent, then we might think that you're pandering to uninformed public
fears, posturing from the soapbox of demagoguery, screaming security for your
own political ends.

Technorati Tags: , ,