Leftist Environmnetal Groups Calling Children "Bad for Planet"

The Radical Left will never understand the problems of poverty and large families. The easiest way to lower family size is to raise the standard of living. The reason should be intuitively obvious. Many children provide a significant resource for post working age living in areas where retirement savings are not otherwise possible. Raising the educational levels of women also significantly pushes back initial child bearing ages which in turn lowers family sizes.

Of course there is always the religious option. If a couple has four children and one becomes a celibate priest and the other becomes a celibate nun then the population remains neutral. Of course the Radical Left would reject any such argument.

While in general principle the entire concept of government enforced family planning is abhorrent, there are certain cases where I can certainly see the upside. Imagine all the absolutely inane and useless hot air that would never have been produced had Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Napoleon Blowshisself had never been conceived......Likely the ice caps would still be vigorously expanding...

"Imagine all the absolutely inane and useless hot air that would never have been produced had Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Napoleon Blowshisself had never been conceived......Likely the ice caps would still be vigorously expanding... "

ROTFLMAO! OMG, Chris!

Nappy's nonsense is bad for my patience. I wonder what kind of kid he was. Ewww, on second thought ...... no, I don't.

what do mean WAS???? Seems to me like a classic case of of halted development at early adolescence.....

Hi Chris,

I'll sign a contract not to have any more children if you can continue this debate and tell me what s in it for me--not the world good--but for me. What trade-offs are you thinking willl be presented to all of us?


I'm willing to change my life style if I'm shown convincing evidence on this topic...so far nothing other than "bar talk".

PS: I have three children.

Sincerely,

Eddie

I wouldn't mind a couple of more little children, myself, to make three.

Strawman, Chris. You deliberately misconstrue what is being said here. If you are "...saddened and schocked, shocked that this radical group would compare babies with the happiness they bring for families...," then I'm saddened and shocked at how little regard you have for the happiness of the children you have brought into the world. You are only concerned for your own happiness, judging from this statement. You have no problem, apparently, risking your children's futures, not to mention their children's and grandchildren's, in order to drive your own ideological agenda. That's just egotistical and selfish.

Eddie: "I'll sign a contract not to have any more children if you can continue this debate and tell me what s in it for me--not the world good--but for me."

Now, here is an honest conservative! He unapologetically puts his selfishness right out there and doesn't qualify or disguise it in the least! Thank you, Eddie!

Eddie: I'm willing to change my life style if I'm shown convincing evidence on this topic...so far nothing other than 'bar talk'."

What!?! You'd actually change your lifestyle?!?

Given your statement above, I can only offer you "evidence" of "what's in it" for you. I knew about this 3+ decades ago, so I decided to not have children. I retired at 55 with no debt whatsoever, and a very nice-sized nest egg. I paid taxes over the years to help educate other people's children, but in a few years, other people's children are going to pay my social security and medicare. I think I got a good deal there. Now, these were not my goals, but very nice side benefits - of giving a damn about "world good", as you put it.

What's going to happen when the reproduction rate dips below the population replacement rates?

What's going to happen to Social Security and Medicare?

I make no apologies for wanting a large family.

Generally speaking, every generation does better than the one before it. I see no evidence to the contrary.

Our future is in good hands.

Ummmm Chris........... That's already the case in the US........ In another couple years we'll have more people on SSI than we will have payers into it.........That's what the Social Security crisis is all about. The crisis the Democrats keep using to accuse the Republicans of wanting to steal seniors SSI money. When they (democrats) KNOW damn well that the money is going to run out, if nothing is done very soon to address it.
But in the USA for the last 8 years the average couple now has 1.7 children, or less than the replacement amount. Not to worry though our burrito eating friends from the south have more than picked up the slack and at present rates Hispanics will have a plurality in this country by 2025. Sooooooo if you do have any more kids, you might want to teach em how to speak spanish so they will know how to communicate with their bosses, because I have a feeling once they get their plurality, this will no longer be a multi lingual country. SPANISH ONLY AMIGO!!

I have three children and want to have more... though teaching spanish is in the forcast for my children, one day I'll visit the Rez where some of my family is from and they mostly speak their native language mixed in with spanish (30% spanish, the native language is disappearing). I grew up hearing spanish, it's what my grandparents would speak in when they didn't want the "kids" to know what they were discussing. lol

I have none right now and definitely would like to have at least my obligatory 1.7......As well as lots and lots of practice runs............ ;-)

Chris: "What's going to happen to Social Security and Medicare?"

If I take your attitude about it - who cares! Your kids will pay for mine. Who cares what happens to them? You sure don't!

Chris: "I make no apologies for wanting a large family."

Yes. We all know it's about what Chris wants. And I don't expect you to apologize for wanting a large family, because you won't be around when the consequences of your decision hits your kids and grandkids.

Genevieve: "I have three children and want to have more..."

Like Chris, it's all about what you want. Do you have a clue what their adult lives will be like with a projected 10 billion people on the planet - with diminishing resources? How can you look your three children in the eye, knowing what you're setting them up for? Is what you want really that more important than their future well-being?

chris w: "I have none right now and definitely would like to have at least my obligatory 1.7"

You may want to rethink that. If Chris and Genevieve are planning to have lots of kids, think of the "majority" your 1.7 kids will be dealing with. No joke, friend!

Chris: "Generally speaking, every generation does better than the one before it. I see no evidence to the contrary."

This is the first generation for which this is not true. If you don't see the evidence, you're not looking.

Chris: "Our future is in good hands."

What you really mean is that the next generation's future is in their hands. This is cynicism disguised as optimism. Don't bother me with it - they'll take care of it.

I learned from my father that you leave the next generation better off than you were. You don't simply hand it off to them and say - hey, kid, you're smart enough to figure it out yourself.

I imagine 10 billion won't be much different than how it is with 5 billion.

You also made my point for me, "I learned from my father that you leave the next generation better off than you were."

That's pretty much what I said - each generation does better than the one before.

Chris: "I imagine 10 billion won't be much different than how it is with 5 billion."

5 billion? It's closer to 7 billion (hit 6 billion around 2001). But you go ahead and imagine all you like. Your disconnect from reality is increasingly apparent. Even so, using your logic, there will be alot of Chrises then saying they can't imagine a difference between 10 billion and 20 billion.

Chris: "You also made my point for me, 'I learned from my father that you leave the next generation better off than you were.' That's pretty much what I said - each generation does better than the one before."

There's a world of difference. I regret for your sake and your family's that you are unable to see it. I hope you will some day wake up, and that awakening won't be a rude one.

Oh, wow! There's more than I thought and we're still doing fine.

One thing everyone overlooks is mankind's ability to not only adapt, but develop new resources and figuring out better ways to do things.

I have the utmost confidence that our future is a better one.

Chris: "Oh, wow! There's more than I thought..."

Yep. Just another example of your facts being off.

Chris: "...and we're still doing fine."

You're delusional. You must be one of the 28% still living in bushworld.

Chris: "I have the utmost confidence that our future is a better one."

Translation: Don't bother me.

Well Steve it appears that you would be right at home in hte PRC. They have mandated only 1 child per couple as law now. This has led to abortion of female babies to the point that males are being born 4 to 1 over there. Two more generations and I don't think population control is going to be an issue over there, but they very well may have to revisit there government policy on homosexuality.....

So Steve what would you have us do?? Start our own little cooperative farms and huddle round the fireplace to keep warm? (Oooops can't do that, carbon from fire....) Well I guess we could cuddle to keep warm...(gonna lead to sex which will lead to pregnancy, lead to babies....) Damn I guess we all better get used to sitting in the dark and the cold masturbating bitterly......

Steve you're a real ray of sunshime buddy!!

Actually I like to low-ball expectations and estimates. :)

Chris: "Well Steve it appears that you would be right at home in hte PRC...."

Not worth a response.

Chris: "So Steve what would you have us do??"

I'll ignore your sarcasm and give you a real response.

Article from 2000 stating potential of solar energy ("Each day, more solar energy bathes Earth than its 5.9 billion inhabitants consume in equivalent electric power in 27 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo" - notice 5.9 billion in 2000):
http://www.enn.com/archive.html?id=31654&cat=archives

Emerging technology collecting solar energy in a process like photosynthesis
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48187

Concentrated solar design
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43336

More concentrated solar design (line our interstates and major state highways with these?)
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/whatisastirlingengine.htm

If you gotta use coal, then don't just "sequester" the carbon underground - use it!
This process uses carbon to grow algae through photosynthesis, creating hydrogen in the process. The algae is then used as a biofuel (or a health drink, depending on your preference). No pollution. Twice the energy from coal. Half the emissions. Watch the third segment of this video program:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

It would be poetic justice if your daughter grows up to be a leading engineer, creating even more sophisticated technologies that provide energy with no emissions or pollution.

Now I will await your characteristic negativism toward these types of innovation this nation needs to untangle itself from the mideast, reduce the threat of global warming, create good-paying jobs and economic growth, reduce threats to public health from pollution, restore our leadership status in the world, and make our nation significantly more secure.

Hey, I'm all for it once it becomes competitive in price with current energy sources. As it is, I'm not ready to jump into a car that only gets 40 miles on a charge and struggles to carry a family of four.

Get that bad bout upwards of 250 with the power, etc that I currently have, and I'm more than happy to jump on board.

Same with potential energy sources.

I'm a HUGE believer in nuclear energy as an alternative to coal or natural gas. As with current technologies, get the windmills or solar panels to be as dependable and affordable as current energy sources and I'll jump on that bandwagon as well.

I must stress the dependability and affordability part - I don't want to suffer a blackout in the Tallahassee summer when it can top out at 115 degrees.

Get all of that hitting on all four cylinders and I'll be one of the first to jump on it.

There is no doubt that our addiction to mideast oil is a threat to our national security. I doubt there is anyone who doesn't realize we need to convert to alternative renewable, preferably clean energy sources. But you say that as if it's just like flipping a switch. There are unimaginable costs involved for virtually every sector of our economy, which means it has to be done incrementally and properly, to avoid massive interruptions in enrgy availability. That process is already under way, but will take at least 15-20 years to be fully integrated and capable of replacing oil/gas.

You aren't talking about changing a light bulb here Steve.

I still think that children are bad for the planet, but then I don't like children very much. Well, not other people's children, that is.

Well I'll give you this Lera, they're a helluva lot more fun to make than they are to raise......

Chris: "I'm all for it once it becomes competitive in price with current energy sources."

Gosh, Chris, if you ever decide that sacrifice for the national/common/future good, then you can start coughing up a little money to help renewables become competitive. I pay $30/month - probably less than most guys spend on beer. Here's a link for your convenience:

http://www.sterlingplanet.com/

Also, write your senators and representative re: shifting subsidies and tax breaks from fossils to renewables. Then see how quickly renewables become competitive. They're not that far off, and they're gaining fast.

Re: nuclear. Fine, if you agree to accept all of the waste in your community.

Chris: "Get all of that hitting on all four cylinders and I'll be one of the first to jump on it."

Does it ever occur to you to help with the heavy lifting?

chris w.: "There is no doubt that our addiction to mideast oil is a threat to our national security."

Global warming is as well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0419/p02s01-usgn.html

chris w. "You aren't talking about changing a light bulb here Steve."

Truly! Though changing those light bulbs will help.

Store the waste in the Yucca Mountains. PERFECT for nuclear by-product.

Chris: "Store the waste in the Yucca Mountains. PERFECT for nuclear by-product."

The people of Nevada have rejected that idea. Maybe they don't want nuclear energy. Nevada is optimally suited for solar.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43336

Yucca Mt. is not an option, even if it were a "PERFECT for nuclear by-product," which it is not.

"Our nation needs to reexamine the transport and storage of nuclear waste. In the 1970s, when reactors first started coming online, we were told: 'Don't worry, we'll figure out a solution to the waste issue.' But 30 years later, our country still does not have a working plan in place for long-term storage or disposal of nuclear waste. Almost twenty years ago, the government and scientific community settled on long-term geological storage at Yucca Mountain. But today Yucca Mountain is still not operational, and instead has become even more controversial: In March of this year, the Department of Energy revealed that documents relating to the safety of the proposed repository may have been falsified."

"Therefore, America currently stores nuclear waste on an ad hoc basis at dispersed sites that are vulnerable to terrorist attack or theft. There is a lesson in this history: if private firms are going to start building reactors again in the United States, our nation should not just say, 'We'll figure it out.' America must have a waste solution that not only has been vetted by the scientific community, but also is actually in place and working, before any expansion of the country's nuclear power generating capacity."

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentid=4470

No - if you want solar, YOU live near the nuclear toilet!

I believe 2017 is the year Yucca is to come online. After years of test it shows it's the best place in the country for it. Granite, easily guarded, away from populated areas.

If we're going to be serious about looking at "all" the options, then we have to look at all the options.

No - if you want solar, YOU live near the nuclear toilet! And don't think you're going to transport nuclear waste on rails or highways anywhere near where I live!

The other thing about nuclear is it's economically not feasible. No nuclear plant in the world exists independently of substantial government subsidy. Here - watch this video. Amory Lovins is an energy guru, and he explains why renewables are already in a better position to address the climate change issue than nuclear, as well as being increasingly competitive with fossils, safe, clean, with no toxic waste that will take a thousand generations to decompose. The only people arguing for nuclear are vested interests.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319

Nuclear waste has been transported safely with no accidents for 30+ years.

I guess that means I don't want windmills ruining my line of sight to the beach (a la Ted Kennedy), or if I don't want solar panels absorbing and reflecting heat in my neighborhood, too, then I can rebel against it.

I love the NIMBY crowd.

Chris: "Nuclear waste has been transported safely with no accidents for 30+ years."

That's what they tell you anyway.

Lovins: Even if you solve the waste problem, nuclear is a non-starter because it can't make money. There are no investors.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319

Chris: "I guess that means...."

Suit yourself.

Chris: "I love the NIMBY crowd."

Good. Then you agree that nuclear waste should be stored in your community. Or are you saying that you are the NIMBY crowd?

Appalling and sickening. Human beings are not the scourge of the earth, but the crown of God's creation. It is our duty to care for the gift of the earth by not being so fond of disposability, plastic and huge cars and huge lawns when we could be living in more walkable communities. Having children is a good thing, the best thing we can do when we do it with love and responsibility.

I have never understood why people would want to live on a small piece of land in a walk able community. Maybe I am just a paranoid war vet, but they thought of living out in the middle of Bum Fu** Egypt with 20 acres on either side of me is much more appealing. I don't care if I have to drive 20 miles to the nearest city to shop and what not. We need to use the technology we have right now. Sorry the energizer cars are not cutting it, they are not the pink bunny on TV, they eventually stop going and the price of a replacement battery is crazy, and then you have to pay for the disposal fee of the old battery. Until global warming can be proven, people should be ashamed for preaching their Stalinist ways.