> It's not just a numbers game. If you have the
> opportunity to bring a child
> into the world that has a reasonable chance to make a
> positive contribution,
> there are few arguments not to do so. The world
> doesn't just need fewer
> people; it needs more people that can make a positive
> contribution and fewer
> whose lives will ultimately be fruitless (not to mention
> miserable).
> Only if the rest of us decide we are saving the planet by
> _not_ breeding.
> 8^)
> Doug
it is a numbers game, doug, and as long as it continues the planet will suffer.
it is not realistic to suggest that enlightened people will save the planet by
breeding. people who are able to enjoy the fruits of their wealth are not
about to invest in breeding units of labor when it is not necessary, unless
they are doing it to spread their dogma.
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.
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.
jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
