Comments about ‘Utah's birthrate highest in U.S.’

Return to article »

State's women also No. 1 in many other fertility-linked areas

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 19 2008 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

I don't expect or want to convince anyone to have more kids who doesn't want them. I'm fine with those who just want a small family. Their resentmant of anyone choosing to have more kids is what draws my defense of that choice. It is shortsighted to see only the drawbacks of children and ignore the benefits to our society. Unfortunately, some shortsighted people try to pass laws that make it more difficult for families in an effort to ease the burden on those without children. Those of us who realize the need for those children in the future must stand up for families now or society will be in trouble later.


To suggest that overpopulation of the earth will create valuable new markets is the stupidest thing I've heard yet - even from Utahns.

reopen new regions

WASHINGTON, DCSecretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced yesterday that, in order to deal with a growing population that just passed 300 million, the U.S. will reopen the immense, barren region known as South Dakota for the first time since it was shuttered in 1931. "Though no human being has stepped foot on that desolate soil for the better part of a century, we believe it is the best option for addressing the overcrowding we see in the country's habitable states," Kempthorne said. "The great, uncharted territory of South Dakota is henceforth open, with plenty of space for anyone who wants itanyone at all." According to Kempthorne, if national population continues to grow at this rate, his agency may consider lifting the federal ban on non-Mormon residents in Utah.


In the old days the patriarchs bragged to each other how many wives they had and how many children they sired. It was a status thing.
What stupidity!

Voice of Reason

And to say that the Earth is in emminent danger of "overpopulation" has got to be in the top 5 stupidest enviro-wacko opinions on the planet. The idea that we're in the midst of a Malthusian Catastrophe has been dashed to pieces by empirical observation and research.

People on earth only very rarely starve because there's "too many people" - there's virtually always another underlying cause: war, drought, or some other temporary disruption of normal food supply chains.
If population density were really the main factor driving starvation as so many enviro loons believe, then Hong Kong and Japan would be constantly in the throes of starvation, and more sparsely populated places like Rwanda, Siberia, and Libya would be paradises of plenty.

The earth doesn't have too many people; it's that the earth doesn't always do a good job of getting its plentiful food, etc. to those who need it.

World starvation is not a worldwide supply problem; it is a worldwide distribution problem.


To all the environmentalists out there you should now that nature will take it's course. You can't become "overpopulated" because nature will eliminate excess population somehow. The fact that there are more than 6 billion people on the earth and the population is still increasing means there is still enough room for them. If we become overpopulated we will know it.

progressives limit family size

Neocons always put off certain disagreeing facts until the last possible moment.

Overcrowded cities are one of their disagreeing facts.

Meanwhile, progressives are busy sounding the alarm amongst their own groups and limiting family size not really caring what the overbreeding neocons do or don't do.

To Nature

"If we become overpopulated we will know it."

Some of us already know it, and are taking steps to make a change. Wouldn't it be better to prevent problems we can already envision than to simply allow them to overcome us because of our failure to act?

Of course the world will self-correct if necessary, but who wants to endure a World War or a widespread famine in order to "thin the herds"?


Man is the only animal that poisons its own drinking water and breeds itself out of existence.

the remedy

China's second manned space capsule just returned from orbit, paving the way for a future Chinese moon mission.

This may solve China's overpopulation problem, two people and billions of dollars at a time.

a sobering thought

To all those wonderful people who are joyously releasing those little souls into heaven with child after child, here's something to ponder:

There are more people on earth today than have ever died.


The best counsel I ever got from my LDS bishop/obstetrician was "you owe more to the children you have, than the children you don't have." Large families are great, provided the parents don't pawn them off on the neighborhood or ward to deal with because they can't handle parenting alot of kids. Some people do an excellent job with lots of kids and frankly some stink at it. Do everyone a favor and know your limits and act accordingly.


Did you know that the U.S. makes up only 4 percent of the world's population, yet we have one third of its automobiles and consume one-quarter of its energy supply? Keep that in mind the next time you get passed over for that big promotion at work!


"A man's gotta know his limitations."
- Dirty Harry Callahan

putting it into perspective

If we convert the total population growth of 2.5 billion for the first half of the 21st century to an annual rate of growth, we can expect 54 million additional people per year to occupy the planet. That large a number still seems pretty hard to relate to, though, so if we take it down to a per-day figurewhich would be 149,000 net additional people per dayit's

more understandable because we can compare it to figures we're familiar with. For instance, 149,000 is two or three football stadiums worth of people (depending on the stadium capacity). Maybe that doesn't seem like so many people at first, but remember how shocked we were when we were told about the death toll from the December 2004 Asian tsunamiseveral hundred thousand people died. Yet today we're adding that many new people to the planet's population every two days.

Happy Families?

My six siblings and I grew up in a strong LDS happy family that other families looked up to as having high morals, strong values, and well-behaved children. Behind closed doors we frequently endured physical and emotional abuse. We believed our family was unique with this quiet abuse, but have since realized more families are dysfunctional than they are healthy. Newlyweds are having babies before they understand their new marital relationship, making their children grow up along with them. Not a great example of how to get along. Lazy stay-at-home mothers make their children pick up their slack. Tired, angry fathers come home after a long days work to have to raise his kids because his wife was unwilling to. This is spelling disaster. Im not against multiplying and replenishing the earth. I am against having children before you are responsible and before you have prepared for this great blessing. Children come into the world innocent and wonderful; a happy, healthy marriage is an absolutely essential foundation for them. Making them suffer because you were anxious to start is heartbreaking and can inflict serious damage. Kudos to all the families who did do it right; you have my utmost respect.


The earth is a "closed system," meaning that we have to recycle or store all of the wastes we produce, and until we establish the Mars Alfalfa and Mining Colony, we only have one planet's worth of land and water to provide resources for agriculture, energy, and other needs. How well we do at these two factorsresource use and pollution managementbasically depends on two factors:

the number of people on the planet; and
the average amount of resources available (per person) and the average amount of pollution produced.
In basic terms, the average global standard of living is directly related to the resources available. The health of the planet (in terms of pollution) is related to how much stuff, on average, each person uses. The total impact we have on the planet, therefore, is roughly the total number of people times the average standard of living.


There have never been more people on Earth. There have never been more cows on Earth, nor pigs, nor chickens. We are using more pesticides today than at any other time in history and we are losing a greater percentage of the crops. At the same time, there has never been less clean water on Earth. There has never been less available topsoil, nor fewer fish, nor fewer mature trees. There has never been less cause for optimism for the future of the human race. Our natural resources are disappearing at an unbelievable rate, and our so-called leaders offer only cosmetic solutions. The Earths population calls for more of everything while the Earth demands time to recover from years of abuse.
~ Howard Lyman


Nearly all global problems are made worse by overpopulation.
We have wars fighting over scarce resources and territory.
We destroy the habitat of every other species, pushing them to extinction. In India alone the population increases by 20 million every year. These people have to live and farm somewhere. The increase wont stop until all the wildlands are gone. Which do we really need more of on earth? humans or the other species?
Dealing with the pollution of our industries and fecal waste is compounded by overpopulation.
Plagues thrive in overcrowded conditions.
We are rapidly depleting our non-renewable energy reserves. Every person in the developed world consumes 40 times as much as in the developing world. As the huge populations of the developing world demand the fruits of development the energy and resource needs will soar.


Americans tell me that it is not their fault the world is overpopulated. The fault lies in Asia and Africa where people have large families. Yet each American consumes 11 times the resources of someone living in Asia or Africa. Americans import these resources from all over the planet. Every American kid counts as 11 kids in terms of burden on the planetary ecosystem. Not only do Americans need to reverse their population growth, they must reduce their ecological footprint. Each American woman has about 2.07 children, equivalent to a family of 23 children in terms of drain on the ecosystem.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments