🚀 go-pugleaf

Another comment (yet) about the decision to have children (don't groan too
loudly).  One of the irritants of not having kids is the smugness and
superiority of parents assuming you are not complete without kids.  My
initial knee-jerk response is if kids are important to you then adopt them
(i hope to in the future).  In a crowded world there are lots of kids who
need decent homes.  To think that reproduction is neccessary on an
individual basis is the height of arrogance.  You are explicitly stating
that your genetic makeup is the superior one and needs to be continued. I
would argue that on an individual basis, that's an asinine argument. I
realize I risk offending my friends and peers who have kids, but that's
the way I feel.

As to the response that we need less personal argument and  more science
on this BBS, I would argue that this argument on overpopulation must
evolve from an abstract discussion where the problem is someone else's to a
real issue of personal involvement.  It's difficult to clean up the world
when your nest is dirty.  Science is neccessary but so is philosophy
(after all many of us are Doctors of philosophy or had you forgotten?).
Enough ranting for the moment.

Tim Baker
tbaker@staff.tc.umn.edu

Isn't it great to live in a country where we spend billions to put humans
in space after giving up on finding an efficient way to move people 5
miles to work and back?  (stolen from somebody).