--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > [snip] > Nonetheless, it is true that many poor countries are increasing more rapidly > in population than the more affluent countries. In these countries, it would > be appropriate to curb the growth to sustain its economy, population and > style of living. >
"In these countries" - you mean the poor countries? But John, do you think it's quite OK for us rich countries to indulge ourselves and have no kiddie quotas, and then try to dictate, or put pressure on the poorer countries, to tighten their belts (as it were!)? It may be true that in the West we have the demographic time-bomb of a smaller proportion of "workers" supporting a larger proportion of elderly. So if we want to maintain our lifestyle we need MORE kiddies from our breeders, not less. But the issue is in the "if" there surely. If we claim to be "Planet carers", and green to our core - then shouldn't greens propose that we set an example: "One child per family in the USA until the planet's population is manageable". And then take the economic hit on the nose? And then there's the question: To what extent should we demand consistency in their personal lives from green leaders such as Al Gore? You know, he of the big-energy house, the largish family, etc? http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp
