To the guy who thinks everyone should ride their bike to work, regardless of their situation

Just a quick note: I think if you can ride your bike to work, that's great. You get exercise, you reduce pollution, it cost less money, there are numerous benefits. Dan, I believe, rides his bike to work, and I think that's great. Especially if you happen to like the environment ( I get along with the environment okay, we are occasionally on speaking terms, every once in a while, I say hello).

So I'm at work and this lady is complaining about the radio stations she has to endure while she drives to work (i.e. crappy morning shows). A guy who rides his bike to work states "if you ride your bike to work you wouldn't have that problem." Did I mention the lady lives 35 miles away from work? Look, if you are dumbfounded why someone who lives 35 miles away from work doesn't ride their bike, you have a problem. We think it's great you ride your bike, we just think it's annoying when it gives you a superiority complex. I'm trying to decide if this guy just wants to insert the fact that he rides his bike to work into everyday conversation, or if he actually thinks this lady's life would be improved if she rode her bike to work. Let's see, 40 minute commute to work vs. 2 hours ( assuming average speed 20mph). You are asking her to sacrifice an extra 2.5 hours a day, for what? Not to mention, this is on an interstate highway. I'm not saying we have to take the fastest way to work, but if you triple your commute time, I'm going to give you a pass. Again, if you want to ride your bike to work, more power to you. Just don't try to randomly insert it into conversation. Also, if you happen to be one of the green types, I know protecting the environment, conservation, and the like are all about sacrifice. But you have to understand that sometimes people don't want to sacrifice 2.5 hours a day with their family.

How many kids should we have?

Last October I had a post about environmentalism and how there are two major views, one being that we should be cautious on using up the earth's resources, and one that the world was designed by God to have enough resources till the end of the present age. I mentioned in the post that

1) Humans are not parasites. Some of the more extreme environmentalists - not the norm - would be happy if most of the population was wiped out, due to consumption of natural resources. I will say that I do not believe overpopulation is a problem. Granted, one should not have more kids than they can feed, but God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He does so without qualification. Yes, the "subdue the earth" is without qualification as well, but we subdue the earth for resources, and one can argue that these resources are limited, so we do not subdue it as much. The point is, "subdue the earth" is open to more interpretation; "be fruitful and multiply" is less so. Anyway, humans should never, ever be seen as a liability, and I believe that any measure to discourage population growth encourages this viewpoint.

I don't simply want to nag on a point, but this is something that has been on my mind, and there was an interesting discussion primarily between Dan and I on the population issue. I had mentioned that people who have many kids tend to be less materialistic, but I just wanted to reiterate that I don't think the converse statement is necessarily true: that people who have fewer kids are more materialistic. I'm saying that previous sentence is not necessarily true.

I still stand by my belief that as long as we can afford to feed our kids, it is okay to have as many as we want. Dan argued that this should apply to a global scale as well, because globally we are supposed to be running out of resources, and that we should consider the amount of children in light of those issues. I don't know how to answer that, as I have little knowledge of sustainability issues. However, I still don't believe people who choose to have 5 or 6 kids are doing anything wrong. As I said previously, God said to "be fruitful and multiply", and He was addressing humanity in general. If God came to me directly and said "Hey Chance, be fruitful and multiply", I would have at least 3 kids. (I am not saying everyone should have more than 2 kids, because I think God's command in Genesis was to humanity in general, and I don't think people are sinning for not having children.) Psalms says that

4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one's youth.

5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

Anyway, as I said, I don't have any logical argument against the overpopulation issue, I just don't think that people are doing anything wrong than having X number of kids. I have a coworker who has 5 children; I don't think he is sinning. Also, he has to continually make material sacrifices because of his 5 kids. He's not the type of person environmentalists have to worry about. Care for the environment and our resources is noble, but I'm afraid it can cause us to look at human beings as nothing more than consumers of natural resources.

I suppose this hits home for me because I have my first child on the way. To me, she is more than just a consumer of natural resources. If I want 7 more (which I don't) then I'm going to have them.

How do we take care of the earth?

Let's take a look at Genesis 1:28-30.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

I bring up this verse because I want to look at mankind's role in taking care of the earth, and understanding this role is important in light of environmental issues such as global warming and energy sources. When talking to various Christians, two main viewpoints come about.

1. God has provided on this earth exactly what we need. God has told us to fill the earth and subdue it, and He does so without qualification. Also, I trust that the earth will have enough resources to last us until the coming of Christ.

2. We are supposed to be more wise in our use of natural resources and ensure that what we do to the earth will not strongly impact future generations in a negative way. While God does not explicitly command us to conserve energy, one would expect that God expects us to use wisdom in our care of the earth, in the same way that He expects us to wisely manage our finances or our property.

I can understand both points of view, and I do not really know where I am. I can see the virtues in both. The first places trust that God will give us exactly what we need, but the second viewpoint - which does not negate God's providence in any way stresses wisdom in management of the earth.

I don't have that much to say on the topic; I just wanted to present these two different viewpoints that I have seen in Christianity. I do not have any articles to link to, these are just the viewpoints I have gathered just by talking to people.

I do want to make a couple of points however.

1) Humans are not parasites. Some of the more extreme environmentalists - not the norm - would be happy if most of the population was wiped out, due to consumption of natural resources. I will say that I do not believe overpopulation is a problem. Granted, one should not have more kids than they can feed, but God says "be fruitful and multiply" and He does so without qualification. Yes, the "subdue the earth" is without qualification as well, but we subdue the earth for resources, and one can argue that these resources are limited, so we do not subdue it as much. The point is, "subdue the earth" is open to more interpretation; "be fruitful and multiply" is less so. Anyway, humans should never, ever be seen as a liability, and I believe that any measure to discourage population growth encourages this viewpoint.

2) The earth is here for us, we are not here for the earth. Again, this does not give license to reckless disregard for the earth, but I do think we should have our priorities correct. In my view, Genesis 1 seems to favor the viewpoint that the earth is here for us. It has an overall tone that man (I use man in the broad sense, not a specific gender) has dominion over everything else. Again, this viewpoint can easily encompass varying environmental views, I am just saying we should have our priorities straight.

Just a few thoughts.