Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4470Re: Time magazine catches on to the childfree movement, misses the green angle

Expand Messages
  • ES
    Aug 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Someone has watched idiocracy once too many times :-)

      To elaborate on the point that it costs more to raise a child for the rich, not only is child rearing more expensive, so is home(s) ownership, transportation, food, clothing... It can be quite costly to be rich.

      On the bright side, educating and providing better health care etc., to the 'underclasses' should result in their reducing their rate of reproduction as well.

      --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, Alan Thomas <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:

      > Perhaps this might have some merit in a squicky way if you approached it
      > Margaret Sanger style. But this movement goes just in the opposite
      > direction. It has no impact on the reproduction of the underclass;
      > therefore it simply removes healthier, better educated (and more educable)
      > children from the population.
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic