Letters Sep 9, 2015 at 4:20 pm

Comments

1
Uh, Jan honey, you are just simply wrong here, despite the props from the Merc.
Certainly consumption plays a hand here, no doubt, but even the most eco-conscious family, and kids, will still be leaving their footprint for generations... their kids having more kids etc etc
I imagine your beef with this point of view is that you have kids.
Cool.
But the simple fact remains that having kids is the worst possible thing you can inflict upon the environment.
I personally don't have a problem with it, but we should all be aware of the implications.
Me, I don't have kids, recycle, and drive a gas efficient older Honda - which puts me in the top 10 percent of Least Damaging Humans To The Environment.
But I wish I had a daughter.
Environment be damned.
2
I got news for you, you can compost, drive your electric car, whatever, and you're still looking down the barrel of a future massive war, as well as climate change, with an attendant die-off as much as any patriarch with 10 kids, except he'll be better prepared than you because he had the sense to stockpile the ammo and create a family army while you were out stumping for Hillary hoping she'll keep the free birth control coming while she was actually preparing to wage war on Iran to feed her fat cat donors as they take one last ride on the conspicuous consumption carousel. Only people with large families will survive, in the DNA sense, what's coming since they may have one descendant left when it's over. Feel free to congratulate yourself on your small footprint, which is still larger than that of the average Third World family, but no one will notice in the end because no one will be here to give you your Sierra Club award. Cheers!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.