Genesis

[Ronn! Blankenship]

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!  :)