> So if its a numbers game, how do you "win" by not
> having children?
actually you lose by having too many children and overpopulating the planet...
> > the argument you should be forwarding is that affluent
> societies stop
> > consuming so much and put more revenues into an
> "enlightened' educational
> > system and a global social agenda that would eliminate
> wars over resources.
> I agree with that argument. But if I don't have kids
> and get them to
> believe what I believe, who the f__k is going to believe
> when I pass? Do
> you think you and I are going to change everyone else's
> mind in the next few
> years?
no, but neither is realistic to expect "enlightened" advocates to change any
minds. better to focus on solutions that have a chance of working. you can't
assume that the force of numbers can always outweigh the power of ideas. if
that were the case we would never have progressed beyond the dark ages. it is
far easier to change the world now than it was during feudal times.
> > there has always been a gap between the haves and have
> nots with those at
> > the bottom providing the labor and resources for those
> at the top. if they
> > were really so enlightened they would prohibit the
> very greed that enables
> > them to provide for more spoiled brats and share the
> wealth with the
> > oppressed workers of the world, so they would not have
> to breed more
> > children in order to survive.
> If you look at the pre-bush history of the US I'm
> pretty sure you'll find a
> trend towards more haves and fewer have-nots. And
> you'll find that we were
> the envy of the world in many respects; that people wanted
> to come here or,
> that they wanted to emulate our society. That we use far
> more than our
> share of the world's resources is a problem, but the
> fact that we were one
> of several nations that were aware of the environmental
> problems that we're
> facing was a positive. Unfortunately, because of poor
> leadership, we've
> lost our way.
you ahve got to be kidding, the bush/cheney abberration has widened the gap
between haves and have nots far more than under clinton.
> But I digress. My real point is that I can only do so much
> in my lifetime,
> but I can help to shape the future by raising good kids and
> by helping them
> to raise good kids. Refusing to do so as some sort of
> righteous statement
> is ultimately self-defeating.
> Doug
i have sired two sons and endeavoured to teach them the consequences of
overpopulation and greed. i won't be around to see what happens to their
generation as a result of the legacy of materialism they have inherited.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
