🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:37:06 -0800 (PST), Al wrote:

> Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco
> friendly
> By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author >>
>
> Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she
> would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a
> pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a
> little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.
> 
> But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
> 
> Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm
> belief she was helping to save the planet.
> 
> Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce
> her carbon footprint
> 
> Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of
> pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who
> performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
> 
> He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity -
> "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible
> surgery.
> 
> Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
> 
> At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive
> years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
> 
> Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was,
> her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
> 
> 
> While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature
> and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost
> religious zeal.
> 
> 
> "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic
> line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

Insane.

We're not even certain that "global warming" is a real problem.  (I hope my
saying that doesn't cause Dr. Amanda to explode by saying that.  And where
IS Dr. Amanda, anyway?)

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.

None of your links work on this computer.  It might be my machine, or
it might be something wrong with the links themselves; be advised.

I assume that loaded terms like "desperate measures", "relentless",
"incredibly...her boyfriend presented her with congratulations", etc.,
are the words of the Daily Mail, which isn't exactly the bastion of
objective reporting.  Jack, Horry, please keep that in mind.

On Dec 5, 6:04 am, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We're not even certain that "global warming" is a real problem.

Please don't go there.

> 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 suspect that the author of the article has pumped it up a bit. Her
argument makes perfect sense to me, and I know several people
who have chosen not to have children and would list overpopulation
as a factor in their decision.

I disagree, obviously. I have raised three children to be
environmentally
conscious and hope that their contribution to the world will outweigh
their environmental footprint, however I can respect the opinion of
those who choose otherwise.

On Dec 4, 2:58 pm, brucef <bru...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 6:04 am, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We're not even certain that "global warming" is a real problem.
>
> Please don't go there.
>
> > 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 suspect that the author of the article has pumped it up a bit. Her
> argument makes perfect sense to me, and I know several people
> who have chosen not to have children and would list overpopulation
> as a factor in their decision.
>

 It can socially enginnered the whole society not to have many
children.
 But it takes many factor to achieve that...


> I disagree, obviously. I have raised three children to be
> environmentally
> conscious and hope that their contribution to the world will outweigh
> their environmental footprint, however I can respect the opinion of
> those who choose otherwise.

I don't know how we can achieve environmetnally conscious
genearation...
Do you see that young generation are driving car faster and more
mileage and depending on more on  fossile fuel than a previous
generation?  I don't know how it
can achieve without burning more fossile fuel. The damage more is
serious   than destroying the environment

"Red Cloud" <mmdir2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:65de7bd5-fbc4-4f83-8ec8-754e4c2ef2e6@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 2:58 pm, brucef <bru...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 6:04 am, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:




> It can socially enginnered the whole society not to have many
> children.


Yup, saw that on the news today. He must have a death-wish or something.


> But it takes many factor to achieve that...

They'll probably just toss him out of the league altogether now. Then he can
go to all the strip clubs he wants, no problem.

mk5000

"It drives me crazy.
Also: Stuart Little ( 1 ) was a fabulous and cute little movie,
and then in the second one, the villain was obsessed with getting a
jewel of some kind ( it's been awhile since i saw it ) and again;
Why?"--the translucent amoeba

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:58:23 -0800 (PST), brucef wrote:

> On Dec 5, 6:04 am, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We're not even certain that "global warming" is a real problem.
> 
> Please don't go there.

I'll go where I want to go.  It's not as though I'm questioning the
holocaust.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:47:48 -0800 (PST), Damien Valentine wrote:

> None of your links work on this computer.  It might be my machine, or
> it might be something wrong with the links themselves; be advised.

Not all of them worked at my end, either.


> I assume that loaded terms like "desperate measures", "relentless",
> "incredibly...her boyfriend presented her with congratulations", etc.,
> are the words of the Daily Mail, which isn't exactly the bastion of
> objective reporting.  Jack, Horry, please keep that in mind.

I'm aware of the source, but I treated the quotes as accurate (and as not
having been taken too far out of context).

Primarily: "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your
genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

Apart from inaccurate -- how does she explain the desire of many childless
couples to adopt? -- it is illogical.  I still don't understand why she and
her husband don't kill themselves.  I'm not joking or being flippant,
because it would be possible for them to do it painlessly.

How is her failure to commit suicide not "all about maintaining [her]
genetic line at the expense of the planet"?

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 suspect that the author of the article has pumped it up a bit.

That much is obvious.

> 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?

> 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?

On Dec 5, 3:46 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I assume that loaded terms like "desperate measures", "relentless",
> > "incredibly...her boyfriend presented her with congratulations", etc.,
> > are the words of the Daily Mail, which isn't exactly the bastion of
> > objective reporting.  Jack, Horry, please keep that in mind.
>
> I'm aware of the source, but I treated the quotes as accurate (and as not
> having been taken too far out of context).

Have you got one of those dictionaries with no entry for "gullible"?

> Primarily: "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your
> genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

Of course it is selfish. Have you read Richard Dawkins?

> Apart from inaccurate -- how does she explain the desire of many childless
> couples to adopt? -- it is illogical.  I still don't understand why she and
> her husband don't kill themselves.  I'm not joking or being flippant,
> because it would be possible for them to do it painlessly.

I guess it is a matter of scale. One life for a few decades vs tens
of thousands of lives over a period of millenia.

On Dec 5, 3:17 pm, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:58:23 -0800 (PST), brucef wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 6:04 am, Horry <horacewach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> We're not even certain that "global warming" is a real problem.
>
> > Please don't go there.
>
> I'll go where I want to go.  It's not as though I'm questioning the
> holocaust.

I don't give a damn about your conspiracy theories, it is just that
the threads get so tiresome.

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