These people, the men quoted in the article, are far out of touch with reality. The larger the family the more "green" they become. Material things become secondary needs and the financial reasources of large families are carefully spent. In my personal experiEnce the less people in a family the more stuff they accumulate and the more disposable items they use. Most large families, my own included, have one income and take that income and spread it over many people. Most small/childless families have two incomes and have more to spend and waste per person. You can be eco friendly with a large budget per person but unless you have made a strenous effort to put people before things the stuff usually takes over your spending accounts. Let me list some common but minor way large families I know are "greener" than others. We reuse reasources more frequently, we usually eat at home and simpler foods, and our kid's character matter more than what brands they wear. So larger is GREEN

First, very briefly, every planet in the solar system is experiencing "global warming." Since mankind occupies only one planet, it is totally illogical to attribute this effect to any action or inaction of mankind.

Secondly, there have been a few articles here about Christians who leave "birth control" in the hands of God. They accept as many, or as few, children as God entrusts to them.

However, we now have childless couples spending large sums on fertility solutions, and many of these solutions result in multiple births (twins, triplets, and up).

I have had occasion to see the quality of parenting done by such couples, who, after failing to conceive naturally, or with the help of fertility specialists, finally adopted.

It seems apparent to me why God left these couples childless!

As for the royals; the dangers of inbreeding have long been known and nobility have been the prime example.

The many ecological crises confronting mankind are the product of the number of humans times the average level of ecologogical impact per person. These two factors have both increased rapidly in the last 2 or 3 centuries, which is why we are now beginning to see the consequences of our actions. No amount of carbon recycling, conservation, alternative energy production, recycling, and re-use will permanently solve these crises, unless we address the underlying population growth as well.

To deny this is, I believe, most antithecal to the spirit of Christianity, and destructive to the long term welfare of mankind. The simplistic interpretation of God telling Adam to "multiply and fill the Earth, and subdue in" is that we, in todays world, should conceive without regard for the consequences to our future generations. We instead should ask, if indeed the passage applies to us and not simply to people of early times, is the Earth not now way past "full"?