Greetings. This is Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church with the Moment of Truth, where we challenge you to think through an important issue of life and faith. Today, can we say that the hysterical warnings about the population time bomb have finally fizzled? Ever since recorded history, man has been saying, there are too many people. We have to do something.

And really, today is no different. For example, a renowned scientist and climatologist, Stephen Emott, says this, Earth is home to millions of species. Just one dominates it, us. Our cleverness, our inventiveness, and our activities have modified almost every part of our planet. In fact, we are having a profound impact on it.

Indeed, our cleverness, our inventiveness, and our activities are now the drivers of every global problem we face. And every one of these problems is accelerating as we continue to grow towards a global population of 10 billion. In fact, I believe we can rightly call the situation we're in right now an emergency, an unprecedented planetary emergency. Stephen Emott, a scientist and climatologist, can you hear the hysteria? We could replicate that voice dozens, hundreds of times over as the cacophony over the people problem grows in volume, frequency, and intensity with every passing day.

But is it true? Does it have any basis in fact? Or is it what I call the pharaoh fallacy? The pharaoh fallacy is that since the world, or even a certain portion of the world, is growing in population, that it ipso facto threatens me in what I have. They, the nameless, faceless mass of humanity, is growing so numerous and voracious for resources, I need, well, something must be done.

There's an implied threat, a cord of fear, which is struck at the mention of overpopulation. The pharaoh fallacy is play on fear. Our first biblical example is that of Pharaoh, who saw a population time bomb ticking in Egypt with the exploding number of Hebrews in his land. He was the first climate alarmist who devised a solution to overpopulation, right? The Bible tells us in Exodus chapter one, Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us.

Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply. And if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land. Therefore, they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied, and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel.

So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service. Oh, dear listener, such is the response to the fear of overpopulation. Additionally, the Egyptians began to kill the firstborn among the Hebrew women as a population control mechanism. The Bible goes on to say, when you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him. But if it is a daughter, she shall live.

But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. Unquote. Oh, behold, one of the earliest attempts at population control. But the Pharaoh is only the first in our rogues gallery of overpopulation alarmists. Did you know that Plato, the great philosopher Plato, was also one.

This seminal philosopher had very specific parameters for population in his republic, his ideal republic. The ideal republic should have a balance, he said, between arable land and the people to till it and keep it. There must be enough resources to sustain, and I quote him now, a certain number of inhabitants in a moderate way of life. No more and no less. Well, Plato never defines too carefully what a moderate way of life is, but he did conclude that in his own day there were too many people on the earth to sustain his ideal vision of a republic, and that measures should be taken to reduce the population.

Well, his successor, Aristotle, another profound philosopher, Greek philosopher, he was of the same opinion, and he modifies Plato's system. He adopts it largely, but he modifies it by trying to attach a rigorous ethical template over it all. He also advocates abortion to control population, and I quote him now, if any people have a child as a result of intercourse and contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it before it has developed sensation and life, unquote. Well, Plato, Aristotle, Tertullian, too. Many of you have not heard of this Christian philosopher from the late second, early third century.

Tertullian puts it this way. He says, our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us, and very deed pestilence as a remedy for nations as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race. Even in his own day when populations were much less fruitful, that was the opinions of all of these men. And of course, Genghis Khan. Oh, yeah.

Genghis Khan presumed the Mongols to be a superior race, and there were too many non-Mongol peoples. It's estimated, according to the website Exploring History, it's estimated that Genghis Khan killed 40 million people, 11% of the then existing world population. And in fact, we have historical records that whole lands were depopulated. Exploring History even tries to make the point that he killed enough people to cool the planet. Now, I'm not sure how they calculate that, but it certainly makes for a good point for the climate argument, doesn't it?

And then, of course, there's Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was also into population control. And I quote Hitler here at this point. He says, the annual increase of population in Germany amounts to almost 900,000 souls. The difficulties of providing for this army of new citizens must grow from year to year and must finally lead to a catastrophe unless ways and means are found which will forestall the danger of misery and hunger.

Yes. And the biographer of Hitler, Brian Kaplan, says this then about Hitler. It turns out that at the root of Hitler's propensity to kill people was his belief that there are too many people, unquote. Well, finally, we conclude with somebody who may have heard if you took high school economics, and that is a man named Thomas Malthus. Thomas Malthus.

He is perhaps the most famous representative of overpopulation hysteria. He is a British scholar and cleric, Thomas Malthus. And if you've ever heard of the Malthusian theory of population, well, that is the guy. And his basic argument in his 1798 work, which was entitled An Essay on the Principle of Population, he says that populations grow in an exponential progression. If we begin with two, for example, and keep doubling after that, we go from two to four to eight to 16 to 32 to 64.

Populations grow in this manner, while food grows in an arithmetical progression. That is, if we start with two again, two, four, six, eight, 10, 12, much slower growth. And one can see that even after five successive computations, the exponential number is 64, while the arithmetical number is 12. Well, Malthus thus reasoned that if this growth continued apace, then the population would soon overwhelm the food available and mass starvation and its attendant specters of war and disease would follow.

He calculated that these positive, he calls them, positive forces, that is famine, disease, and war, they would reduce population, but also negative forces could also serve to reduce population with less misery. And those negative forces would be things like birth control, reduced family size, enforced, of course, and abortion. Well, Malthus thus became an advocate for the negative forces because they reduced the misery side of the equation.

But regardless, to his way of thinking, population would be corrected either by nature in the ebb and flow of these positive forces we mentioned, war, famine, disease, or it would be reduced intentionally and purposefully through negative forces exercised by man himself to restrain population growth and to moderate human suffering and misery. Well, while most people have never or rarely heard of the previous thinkers on this topic, almost everyone has heard of Malthus, haven't they? Especially if you took a basic econ 101 course in high school or maybe college. I don't know if they still teach those topics today there, but I certainly did.

And Malthus' essay was an immediate sensation, and it provoked a great deal of discussion, even legislation in the British Parliament, and his thesis was thought to be gospel in economic and political circles. According to economist Patricia Kutzer, Patricia Kutzer says this about Malthus. She says, Malthus laid the theoretical foundations of the conventional wisdom that has dominated the debate, both scientifically and ideologically, on global hunger and famines for almost two centuries. Yes. In other words, Malthus was not only a preacher of religion, but of overpopulation hysteria.

But is his thesis the gospel it is designed to be. It is trumpeted to be. Many voices have said no, but their voices have not been very well heard. Let me put before you three reasons why the pharaoh fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Number one, the pharaoh fallacy is a fallacy because the concept and the calculation is faulty.

Several scholars have pointed out over the years that the second part of this equation, that food production grows arithmetically, has been made irrelevant. A classic example of anachronism by technology, which has enabled food production to keep pace with population growth over the intervening centuries since Malthus. Things like pesticides and fertilizers, rotation techniques, irrigation practices, and many other advances have rendered the arithmetical growth of food production a non sequitur. And consequently, his logical construct is rendered invalid.

And additionally, even that first part of his equation, that human population grows exponentially, assumes a fatalistic pattern of behavior by a species bound by the laws of evolution. We can do nothing else than breed like rabbits, of course, according to this first part of that equation. In fact, that was the condescending conclusion of one of the West's foremost evolutionary historians as well, Arnold Toynbee. The famous historian Arnold Toynbee puts it this way, and I quote him, we have been godlike in our planned breeding of our domesticated plants and animals, but we have been rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding of ourselves, unquote.

Well, in fact, Malthus's thesis was seized upon by both Karl Marx and Darwin to advance their theories of the inevitability of the triumph of communism, in the case of Marx, and the survival of the fittest, in the case of Darwin. And that forces us to ask the logical question, then, if Malthusian economics is invalid, and both Marxism and Darwinism is predicated in part upon them, does that make Marxism and Darwinianism invalid? Well, the answer to that question must be left for another day. But suffice it to say that Malthusian economic theory proves to be, in the end, invalid on its premises.

Second reason, indeed, why the Pharaoh fallacy is indeed a fallacy is that, number two, it seriously underestimates the grace of God and the ingenuity of man. Underestimates the grace of God and the ingenuity of man. Once more, if we were but mere animals blindly obeying the laws of nature, a case might be made for Malthusian economics. But we are manifestly more than this. And Malthus, as a preacher, should have known better.

Humanity has been infinitely creative and innovative in dealing with burgeoning populations. Demand has been met, really, by supply on a systematic, calculable scale over the centuries. We have briefly touched upon that a few minutes ago. If the food sector of our economy is continued to let innovate and develop, well, we can continue to support a growing population. But when that is tampered with, and this is worth a whole nother show, because it does seem to be that our food supplies are being tampered with.

And I'm not just a conspiracy theorist here on this. I'm a conspiracy therapist when it comes to these issues. Because when our food is tampered with, then we have a problem. Bill Gates, for example, just one example. Bill Gates has been buying up farmland all over the United States, and he's been sequestering it so that it cannot be used to grow food.

Some sources, they say, excuse me, that he now owns 270,000 acres and counting in farmland, and is already the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. Gates, too, is of the opinion that there are too many people on the planet, and that one method for reducing population is reducing the amount of food. Pretty simple, huh? And it's been simple with politicians and rulers from the very beginning. Food is indeed a weapon, as one of the Soviet ambassadors used to say when he would come to America soon after the Soviet Union came into being.

Food is a weapon. Food is a weapon. But thankfully, his is not the only voice out there. Bill Gates, right? And Malthus.

For example, Lyman Stone of Vox website, Lyman Stone says in a piece entitled, Why You Shouldn't Obsess About Overpopulation. I like that title, Why You Shouldn't Obsess About Overpopulation. He says that clearly fear of overpopulation is widespread. But the truth is that overpopulation in the United States is not even close to a serious problem. And he emphasizes that.

It is not even close to a serious problem. Even globally, he goes on to say, overpopulation is an overstated problem, unquote. And then he goes on to make his case. And he points out, for example, that we, the United States of America, is a net exporter of food. 25% of our net production is sold abroad.

We could all use that at home if we needed to, of course. And he also observes that both the United States and many parts of the world still can render vast swaths of presently unused land and make it arable, increasing food production through, as he says, and I quote, technological advancement and managerial expertise, unquote. And this dovetails very nicely with Plato because it's precisely one of the recommendations that Plato makes for the establishment of the ideal republic. Yes, you render vast swaths of presently unused land. You render it arable, increasing food production.

Well, in terms of population density, too, which is a big concern, isn't it, for the overpopulation hystericists, in terms of population density, Stone calculates that America, at least, could still easily support 400 million people, which is 60 to 70 million more than our present population. And he shows how the climate change argument, that is, that overpopulation contributes to climate change, is fraught with fallacies and pitfalls as well.

And after laying out the numbers covering carbon emissions, for example, and their relation to population, he concludes, there is only one way to effectively prevent, alleviate, or reverse dangerous climate change, technological, geographic, and social advancement. Population has little to do with it, especially not in the United States, unquote. Oh, dear listener, God has been good to us. He has given us hearts and minds to explore and innovate, for example. We are a curious, sentient, intelligent species.

For example, the Royal Society used this Bible verse from Proverbs 25.2. The Royal Society, which was the first scientific society in Europe, the Royal Society used this verse from Proverbs 25.2 as a theme, and that is, it is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. Yes. We, as human beings, as sentient, curious human beings, find glory in searching things out. That is discovery.

While we are not to be lazy or negligent, dear listener, or careless about providing for ourselves and for our families, neither are we to be overly obsessed or anxious about it. Our Lord Jesus himself says this, therefore, I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink or about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air. They neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

Are you not of more value than they? And which of you, by being anxious, can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore, do not be anxious, saying, what shall we eat or what shall we drink or what shall we wear? For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself.

Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Unquote, our Lord Jesus Christ. Wisdom, isn't it? In the population debate, dear listener, do not underestimate the grace and provision of God. Well, thirdly, the third reason why the Pharaoh fallacy is indeed a fallacy?

Well, it wickedly opposes God's command, which is the dominion mandate. Yes, the Pharaoh's fallacy is a fallacy because it opposes God's command, which is the dominion mandate. One of the aspects of this debate that has really bothered me from the beginning is the sheer arrogance that we can determine the ideal number of people that should or shouldn't exist, and then control reproduction so as to arrive at that number and maintain it. Ah, it presumes the role of God and his purposes. Well, the express command given to Adam and Eve runs counter to those who would be as gods, and that command was from Genesis 128, God blessed them.

And God said to Adam and Eve, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Yes. But in our own day, there seems to be a contempt and revulsion among moderns to that notion, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, right? The energy and purpose of the modern progressive is 180 degrees counter to it, isn't it? Fully evil, as if to say, be childless, and depopulate, and empty the earth of our species, and let it run wild.

Right? Instead of be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, the progressive mindset of self-loathing will destroy us, dear listener, in the end, and there's nothing Satan would like more. Do you hear the hiss of the serpent there? Hath God said. Even many Christians have fallen prey to this siren song.

We've been blocked and shadow banned from Bible knowledge on the one hand, and we've been reposted and propagandized with progressive misinformation on the other hand. Oh, there's too many people. There's too few resources. Overpopulation increases climate change. Oh, and you get the scowls at the grocery store if you've got more than one or two kids.

Oh, you'll hear something like, well, I don't want to bring a child into the world as it is today, right? Well, all of this is ignorant nonsense. We are wired for fecundity. We can creatively take dominion of creation and make it produce for a growing, flourishing humanity without destroying it either. As biblical Christians, we do not waste the earth, but we do not worship the earth either.

The earth is not our mother. No, God is our father, and he has gifted us to wisely tend the garden which he has entrusted us. We are stewards, not stormtroopers in that garden. Our first parents, Adam and Eve, began in the Garden of Eden, a plush paradise created by God and meant to be extended throughout a howling wilderness, which was without form and void, as the Bible says, to be put under benevolent dominion and made to flourish to the glory of God. It is evil to say that man should go extinct and earth return to the wild.

That is the presupposition to one degree or another of the progressive population depopulation movement. It is not compassionate and loving, dear listener. It is not productive nor sustainable either. How can a death wish be sustained in a dying race as it dies out? The agenda of the progressive climate change depopulation movement will destroy the earth and it will put us on the road to extinction.

But this is not our destiny, is it, dear listener? We will continue to multiply and fill the earth as we are commanded if we are obedient Christians, and we will do so with productivity beyond our wildest imaginations. That is what we are destined for, dear listener, not only in heaven, but also here on this earth. And we will do it with God's help, and we will do it to His glory. The Bible has a beautiful picture of a man at peace and flourishing in God's creation.

This is from Micah chapter 4, verse 4, and it's throughout the Bible too, but this is from Micah, where he says, they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken. Every man under his vine and under his fig tree. Yes, that's the end goal, if you will, of the dominion mandate for the creature and to the glory and praise of the Creator, too, as well. May we all labor towards it in our own day, and may we be faithful as we do it. May you be faithful, dear listener, and take these things to heart and take them into consideration.

This has been Pastor David Bass at New Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church. New Geneva Meets for Holy Worship on Sunday at 10 a.m. We invite you to join us to cross our threshold and meet us. Perhaps you've been thinking of doing that for some time. Oh, try it this Sunday. Come and see us.

We worship at 10 a.m. on Sunday morning at 101 4th Street on the corner of 4th and Boulevard, and you can call us for feedback or more information at area code 208-523-0196. 208-523-0196.