At 08:01 PM Saturday 7/26/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
> > 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. Isn't that exactly what he said? (See the first sentence.) > > 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. . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
