4501RE: Fwd: Opinions on VHEMT
- Jan 26, 2014
Grandchildren have four grandparents, great grandchildren have 8 ggps and so on. We may have 16 grandkids but we share them.
I live in the world's second largest country, which has a population about the same as California, mostly because the place is a frozen wasteland over half of the year. So I am having some difficulty accepting that global warming is going to be a total disaster and bad for everyone. No doubt it will shake things up, but the earth has been much warmer before, like millions of year ago when all that carbon we are now consuming was originally stored in the form coal and oil. Back then where I live shivering today it was a tropical jungle with an ocean, the nearest ocean now is 1000 km the other side of a mountain range. The only constant is change, which is why I can't get all worked about climate change, which started here about 150 years ago by the way, as indicated by a retreating glacier.
Having said that I agree that there are way too many people, especially when I am in a store and they are all lined up at the cashier ahead of me. There are also too many cars on the road, which I notice every time I go for a drive.
I have been pondering all that for some time, and I am coming around to the theory that prosperity, as in excessively surplus wealth, results in lower birth and poverty has the opposite effect, demographics bear this out.
Nagging people to stop having children, or forcing them to stop having children as they did in China does not work.
What is needed is a universal lifestyle that makes children a burden for everyone, then you will have less kids. Think yuppies, yuppies have wealth and are self indulgent, if they have kids they tend not to have many, and when they do they hire nannies or send them to daycare. So if everybody was a yuppie there couldn't be any nannies or daycare workers, which are minimum wage jobs. So, no nannies no daycares, no more kids. Think about it.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>