🚀 go-pugleaf

In rec.arts.sf.science Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:58:23 -0800 (PST), brucef wrote:

>>> What's the desired end-result for these people?  It appears to be the
>>> extinction of the human race to "protect" the planet.  If so, why don't she
>>> and her husband (painlessly) kill themselves now (eco-euthanasia)?  I just
>>> don't get her logic.  I suspect she's a bit of a moron.

     I can't speak for the interviewees in the article, but my desired end-result 
would be a human population of two to three billion--a bit less than half what 
it is now.  Even if global life expectancy increases substantially, a decline in 
the birth rate to the level now existing in most of Western Europe should be 
adequate to achieve that goal by sometime in the twenty-second century.


>> Her
>> argument makes perfect sense to me,

> If her argument makes perfect sense to you, why shouldn't she and her
> husband (painlessly) kill themselves now?

     Because killing yourself, even painlessly, is a far worse thing than simply 
choosing not to have children.  Do you really doubt that?


>> and I know several people
>> who have chosen not to have children and would list overpopulation
>> as a factor in their decision.

> As an afterthought, I strongly suspect.  Many infertile women (and men) are
> heartbroken at their inability to have children (tears, much handwringing,
> tens of thousands of dollars spent on medical procedures).  Has anyone
> *ever* encountered a couple who desperately want to have a child, but feel
> they can't do so because of overpopulation?

     No, I haven't met such a couple.  (Or if I have, they didn't share their 
thinking with me.)  But I would respect their decision.



     Kevin