Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Thomas Beckett <thomas AT tbeckett.com>]

Diana Duncan wrote:
> Why don't people talk about Zero Population Growth and Negative 
> Population Growth any more?  Overpopulation contributes to so many of 
> the problems on our planet today.  The world used to be able to rely on 
> periodic massive wars or plagues to control the population, but we seem 
> to have curbed their effectiveness.  (At least for now...the overuse of 
> antibiotics may come back to kick us in the ass, and it seems viruses 
> are mutating pretty darn fast lately).

The invisible hand of Malthus can be delayed but not denied!

> As a personal choice, I prefer to limit my offspring.  

Caelan:  "Mo-oooom, you never let me do /anything/!"

>  However, what 
> worries me is that it seems that only stupid people have lots of 
> children nowadays.  

Diane, you're veering into elitist Social Darwinism here.  It's an easy 
conclusion to make, but only from a pretty narrow perspective.

> Most educated people are concerned with careers and 
> with providing safe, happy upbringings for their children, and rightly 
> conclude that smaller families make this more likely.  Uneducated or 
> extremely religious folks make the opposite choice.  

Umm, like the offspring of Prescott Bush?

IMO, every baby born is a roll of the dice.  A child's social 
environment does not determine his or her cultural or political destiny 
as an adult.  Some of the brightest, most politically progressive people 
I know come from lower-income families.  And frankly, there are lots of 
extremely intelligent and wealthy neoconservatives getting educated at 
Duke and UNC both.  I met them in large numbers when I studied at both 
places.

TaB