When will it be called madness?

[amped]

The face of evil:



"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879

[F8L]

The many faces of evil???

Mormon Family, aptly named Green. lol



In all seriousness. What is your exact concerns. Are these women evil because they chose abortion or because they choose to not have children due to concerns of over population. What is your opinion on the over population problem?

[amped]

What this nut characterizes as 'reason' disturbs me, and I'm certain others with children, though I've none:

"I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

The obvious conclusion is that she should terminate herself before criticizing others who chose to create the miracle of life.

Any chance the Green family photo is of a polygamist, something my Mormon friends say is an ongoing media bastardization (so to speak) of their religion?

[richard schumacher]

There is no dignity or sense in humans breeding like rats.

[amped]

Then in your opinion, how many children are enough? Care to address a group of Muslims in a mosque with that opinion?

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]543481[/snapback]</div>

What this nut characterizes as 'reason' disturbs me, and I'm certain others with children, though I've none:

"I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

The obvious conclusion is that she should terminate herself before criticizing others who chose to create the miracle of life.

Any chance the Green family photo is of a polygamist, something my Mormon friends say is an ongoing media bastardization (so to speak) of their religion?
[/b]

So am I right to assume then that you feel that there is no population and resource problem and that everyone should have babies?

Why do you think it is wrong for her to critisize others for having many children when we know for a fact that our current population is outstripping the planets resources? Is it not equally wrong for you to critisize her for wanting to reduce suffering globally by not bringing another child into the world who will likely use a disproportionate amount of resources that will just a likely be "stolen" from a developing country and increase their suffering?

[Stev0]

Um, not having a baby IS the most environmentally friendly thing you can do.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]543483[/snapback]</div>

Then in your opinion, how many children are enough? Care to address a group of Muslims in a mosque with that opinion?
[/b]

There is no easy answer for that. I assume you are not well versed in the study of overpopulation? That is not meant as a slam, just a question.

If everyone in developed countries were to reduce their level of consumption then the billions of impoverished individuals in the rest of the world would live better lives. The problem there is that we would need to drastically reduce our lifestyles to accomplish this. This would not solve any problems because unless we achieved a global birth rate of 2.1 we would still continue to grow (this does not account for demographic bulges in current youth). Some areas require some level of reproduction in population or else you end up with no young people to do work and aid in food growing and the economy. A good example of this is rural areas of Romania. Other places could use less young people because of a lack of jobs, landspace, or other factors. A good example of this is Rwanda and other subsarhan countries (the ones not plagued by aids).

The current trend is to critisize places like China, Africa and India for their high birth rates yet high birth rates in the developed world are often times more destructive due to high consumption rates and the application of the generic formula I = PAT to calculate environmental impact. That means that 1 child growing up and living as an adult in the U.S. will use 10x=100x more resources than 1 child in Africa.

Soooo in otherwords, the planet might be able to sustain 50 billion people if we all lived on bread and water and used very little frivilous technology; on the other hand, if everyone in the world decided to live like the average American we would require somewhere around 5 planet Earths to sustain us. Does that make sense? I know it's a bit confusing if you have not studied the concepts.

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

She just might be doing all of us a favor by putting an end her genetic line.

But I must disagree with her assertation . . . never having a child is NOT the most environmentally friendly thing she could do.

By not bringing a child into the world, she is only stopping the addition of another carbon footprint.
Suicide, on the other hand, would actually erase a carbon footprint.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 23 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]543490[/snapback]</div>

She just might be doing all of us a favor by putting an end her genetic line.

But I must disagree with her assertation . . . never having a child is NOT the most environmentally friendly thing she could do.

By not bringing a child into the world, she is only stopping the addition of another carbon footprint. Suicide, on the other hand, would actually erase a carbon footprint.
[/b]

If carbon were the only issue.... *sigh*