Birthrates across the globe are going down even as life expectancy increases. The former trend is marked particularly in developed nations.

There are lots of reasons for people to have kids or not have kids. Some of these reasons are economic. As I’ve argued previously, “One of mon concerns that drives prospective parents to put off having children is economic, specifically that they won’t have the financial resources to support a growing family. This is a worry that’s been around as long as there have been families.”

Perhaps it really is more difficult in America today to make the economic sacrifice (or perhaps better understood as investment) required for having kids.

But often these kinds of economic reasons end up being used as rationalizations. More honest, at least, is this characterization of a ‘rational’ approach to procreation:

Not having children isn’t selfish. Not having children is a perfectly rational and reasonable response given that humans are essentially parasites on the face of a perfectly lovely and well-balanced planet, ploughing through its natural resources, eradicating its endangered species, and ruining its most wonderful landscapes. This might sound misanthropic, and it is, but it is also true.

Here we see a very clear and disturbing image of the human being: a greedy mouth that can never be filled. For someone with that kind of opinion about humanity, the squalling of a hungry infant sounds rather insidious.

This will make two references to Martin Luther in two days for me here at the PowerBlog, but the German reformer had something important to say about this kind of ‘rationality’:

Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labor at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will e a priest or a nun pel my children to do likewise.” (LW 45:39)

Today’s equivalent of the childless clerical calling more often is a secular career, but Luther’s point stands, I think. And so do his words about the estate of marriage from the Christian perspective: “What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels.”

Luther follows up with his famous words about the dignity of changing diapers and suckling babes: “These are truly golden and noble works.” See how different the conclusion is from the secular, misanthropic rationality as Luther concludes, “The greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring mands that they be brought up to worship and serve him.”

How will people know those who follow Christ? By their love for one another, not least of which are children, to whom the kingdom of God belongs.

Which of these contrasting perspectives is correct? “Wisdom is proved right by all her children” (Luke 7:35).