Hubris (self-pride) is traditionally one of the most insidious sins.
Methinks that many of the traditional faithful mistakenly confuse the
call of their God with the pull of their Gonads.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 17 19:29:22 1998
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 09:01:58 +0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: bunny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Family size and zero population growth.
Joe wrote:
>>The population crisis, in the end, comes down to millions of
individual and irresponsible personal decisions, either by the wife or
the husband, to have beaucoup children. I know this hits close to
home with many people (including you, apparently, Angela), but
overpopulation is occurring AT HOME, at ALL OUR HOMES (the
earth), and is threatening to destroy them all. In the face of this
global danger, your anti-birth control stance appears to me to be
less ethical, moral, freedom-fighting and noble than willfully blind,
petty, selfish, and dogma-driven. Please enlighten us as to the
particular dogma that demands you take such an anti-ecological and
anti-feminist position on an ecofeminist listserv. Joe
++I agree with Joe. I only have one child and I am happy with that
choice. Yet I live in a society where "economic growth" and "population growth"
are linked together and we are subjected to "the need for growth" dogma year
after year.
Our authorities tell us that to support the current population as it becomes
older
we need more economic growth and a greater population each year
(although I feel we could attain economic growth
alone with better use of existing resources).
Do we live in a world based on economic growth at the expense of all else?
Is the growth in the number of McDonalds stores and their sales per year or
the amount of
Coca-Cola sold in each country to be our measure of growth?
Does economic growth equate with hapiness and contentment for any country?
Out of the "Economic growth" who benefits? The rich? (the poor don't seem to
be much better off
and the rich seem to bet richer).
Will more rain forests will be cleared to grow more beef for more McDonalds
stores?
Will countries which previously had reasonable high fibre and healthy diets
now be subjected
to poor Western diet and smart sales pitches that lead to cheap highly
promoted junk food meals?
What about the ethics and morals of multinational companies that pay wages
so low in some third
world countries that a days pay won't even cover the cost of a hot meal at
night?
Perhaps in the year 2000 and beyond our measurement of "Economic growth"
should take into account
unmeasurable factors such as air quality, quality of life, leisure time, and
altruistic principles
of helping the poorer nations through non-religious aid to provide
education, bores for water and
re-education on caring for the environment and population control.
If the USA has been guilty of anything in this
century, it is the widespread promotion of consumerism and unfortunately,
all the accompanying
negative effects of consumerism such as resource wastage, pollution etc.
As for population control, taxing those who have more than two children and
promoting a two
children policy to benefit the planet as a whole is a good idea in my view.
There is no good
reason for any woman to produce an endless stream of babies other than for
selfish motives.
At this stage, planet Earth should aim for zero population growth in my opinion.
Marguerite
===========================================================================
/`\ /`\ RABBIT INFORMATION SERVICE: _ _
(/\ \-/ /\) P.O.Box 30, Riverton, Western Australia 6148 (.\_/.)
)6 6( http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm \6 6/
>{= Y =}< VEGETARIAN PAGE =\ /=
/'-^-'\ http://www.geocities/RainForest/4620 /O\ /
(_) (_) / \ (
| . | U U )
| |} Pity the human race its illusion of permanence (| |)/
\_/^\_/ w'-'w
===========================================================================
