Oct
05
2011

Human Assets v. Human Liabilities

Funny, it wasn’t a popular word when we were growing up, but it’s a most popular term thrown around today. A “worldview” is the way you view the world. We don’t typically “think about” our worldview; it’s really just the way we think about the world. We really should think about it, because what grows from it are life’s most basic and life-changing choices. Family choices being a big one among them.

There are two family worldviews, largely at odds with one another. These are views on the value of human life. Consider:

  1. Human Assets. A human being is another worker to produce good products and services. A human being is a person. A person is a steward to the planet and creates healthy resources from its bounty. People are the economy, and the more free people there are the greater the economic blessings. A family is most blessed with children.
  2. Human Liabilities. A human being is another mouth to feed, another job to fill, another number to call. The worldview understands human beings to draw from the limited resources of the planet. Human beings likewise draw from the limited resources of the economy. People tax the economy, ruin the earth, weigh on the family.

This is why I like the video above, put out by the Population Research Institute. “Putting people first” is their motto. It’s a worldview that makes sense, when you think about it.

About Chris & Wendy Jeub

The Jeub Family live in Monument, Colorado. They encourage couples to love God and love one another, building an atmosphere of love in their homes.

  • Glenn343

    Depends on the person. They could be either. Are you saying all people are either A or B?

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      I wouldn’t be so cut and dry (either/or) about it. These are two worldviews, two opposing perspectives of how to view human life.

  • Baconbits

    i loved the video and the points made. it was clear that this is the solution to the ever popular problem the world”faces” due to the ignorant people on the top. they dump extra food to continue to keep the shortage in the forefront so that we, as the consumers, feel the need to believe this rubbish of over population. good job!! well done,.
    chantel

  • TGates

    Makes perfect sense! 

  • W A C Kratochvil

    This by all means makes perfect sense, but the distribution of wealth has changed. The question is it a good thing for there to be no poverty. It is  proven that if the worlds population would all live to a western standard of living we would  need 8 earths to support ourselves. I don’t want to sound as if i don’t wish to eliminate  poverty but the reality is that the world is overpopulated and we simply can’t sustain this rate of growth. 

    • http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris Jeub

      “It is proven.” Is it? I don’t think it is. The Population Research Institute makes it clear that, doing the math, the world is quite plentiful and full of resources. Population has nothing to do with poverty.

      Your premise “it is proven” lends to the conclusion “we simply can’t sustain this rate of growth.” The premise isn’t true, therefore your conclusion doesn’t follow.