Date sent: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:44:16 EDT
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
> In a message dated 98-10-13 10:42:29 EDT, you write:
>
> << One of the main reasons we have an ecological crisis at all
> is because of overpopulation and the overconsumption that follows.
>
> Melissa >>
>
> I disagree - The reason we have an ecological crisis is because of GREED and
> power hungry people!
>
> Thanks!
> Angela
Angela, we have a limited amount of space on this earth and an
unlimited ability to reproduce. How many is too many for you?
Twelve billion? Twelve TRILLION? When we have a shack built on
every square foot of forest and farm land? When we must sleep
standing because we're shoulder-to-shoulder and marry the person
born next to us because nobody can move? Should we, instead of
employing birth control, use the religiously approved traditional
method of death control (starvation, epidemic, poisoned
environment) to limit our numbers? If chemical plant and logging
barons can be limited in their production due to the precious limited
resources they consume and pollute, why not some of the
(religiously driven - 'go forth and multiply') fundamentalist baby
factories we have out there trying to swamp both the earth and the
gene pool with their prodigious progeny, attempting to have their
archaic antifeminist and antiecological views prevail by sheer weight
of numbers? Rights correlate with responsibilities, and good
stewardship demands that we do not have more foresters than trees.
I have agreed with you on some points, but you are hopelessly
wrongheaded on this issue
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 13 12:51:32 1998
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 14:51:12 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
I think that people at this point in time shouldn't be limited in their family
size directly. When you place a outright limit on family size the result can
be such horrors as the current abortion epidemic of female children in china
because male children are more aprecated by the culture. I think the best way
to control population in america would be to impose large taxes (based on the
income of the parents of course) on any family that has more than one child,
thereby discouraging overbreeding without taking away the basic human right to
bear a large family of children.
Peace and Love!
Kelly!
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 13 14:04:58 1998
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Miguel Angel Ordorica <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: family size,etc.
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That only takes the right of reproduction away from the poor...
***************************************
* Miguel A Ordorica *
* Washington State University *
* Department of Sociology *
* Office Wilson 237 *
* (509) 335-4595 (Office) *
* (509) 332-4442 (Home) *
***************************************
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that people at this point in time shouldn't be limited in their family
> size directly. When you place a outright limit on family size the result can
> be such horrors as the current abortion epidemic of female children in china
> because male children are more aprecated by the culture. I think the best way
> to control population in america would be to impose large taxes (based on the
> income of the parents of course) on any family that has more than one child,
> thereby discouraging overbreeding without taking away the basic human right to
> bear a large family of children.
> Peace and Love!
> Kelly!
>
