|Having children||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Saramandaia Farm (etaincryahoo.com)|
|Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 19:17:26 -0700 (PDT)|
I have children...I gave birth to two and adopted one. It's almost universal among animals to reproduce, and humans aren't an exception. It requires over-riding a biological imperative to not reproduce, and it also requires considerable technology for those of us who want a conjugal life that includes sexual intercourse. By considerable technology I mean contraception or sterilization. So drugs, latex, surgery... Unrestrained fertility is another issue, and we in the "developed world" usually exert ourselves to avoid it. I live in a "developing" country, and have seen the birth rate fall precipitously with the availability to women of contraceptives. So education and access to reliable family planning, absent ideas of conquest via high reproductive rates, would seem to be the answer to what we generally understand as overpopulation. The there's the argument that overpopulation isn't the real problem...that maldistribution of resources is the problem. A bit disingenuous. Sustainability is a pretty explicit term...a definition randomly chosen by me..."The ability to provide for the needs of the world's current population without damaging the ability of future generations to provide for themselves." If we have no children, there ARE no future generations, and sustainability is moot...or by default becomes the ability of OTHER animals to provide..." etc. There's also the "no people, no co-housing" truth. I'm not sure what Sherry means by "more children". More than what or whom? Sharon --------------------------------- Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.