[QUOTE=Phøenix;663161]Because that is seriously unethical, whereas simply having no children is not unethical. Think before you speak, or in this case, post.[/QUOTE]

Putting all the high and mighty moralistic attitudes aside, there are so many inconsistencies in the positions that people have on this subject ... WHEN .. they are advocating that "others" adopt their position.  For example:

Phoenix says it would be unethical.  Easy for you to say in a world of plenty.  However, let the tide change and let food become scarce.  Who's to decide who lives and who does not!  While you may think it unethical to let the "have nots" starve .... I would say it would be even MORE unethical to make sure that some of the "haves" starve as well, by taking theirs away for the sake of insuring a few of the "have nots" have something to eat. [NOTE: before someone jumps on the high and mighty regarding excess, the above "hypothetical" is not addressing the scenario where one has enough to give the excess to one in need.  It is the experience of history that the very wealthy will not be touched ..it is the working class "haves" that will be sacrificed.  In fact, it will be the very wealthy who will be taking away from the working class and giving it to the have nots (just as it is done on a daily basis today)]

Moondaughter brings up the all too often quoted socialists mantra of 20% consuming 80% of the resources.  The only problem with that is that the majority of the other 80% couldn't do anything with the resources even if they had them!  They depend on the 20% to put the resources in a useable form!  Thus .. is the goal of educating the ignorant masses!  It's kinda like the AIDS thing in Africa .. where a bunch of folks get off on thinking sex with a virgin will protect or cure them is mind boggling!

Though the "ethical and moral" police like to object .. Nature has ruled supreme since the beginning of life on earth!  In nature .. there is NO RIGHT TO ANYTHING!  You have no right to life, you have no right to food and water, and you definitely have no right to children.

:D

i think for americans in particular, conspicuous consumption is the biggest problem. i used to help some large families as a home birth midwife. they were often religious people of various kinds. an interesting thing i noticed about most of them is they had less junk and toys and waste than the average family with 2 kids. far less! they learned to live simply and frugally not just because they had to but because they valued thriftiness and frowned upon greed. we are such a rich country. we consume most of the world's resources but produce most of its waste. we have relatively small families on average.

Bodean wrote:

Why stop there verdulo ...

How bout we let Nature take it's course, and let the weak starve to death.  Why should we sink billions into medicine etc to save these units that are doing nothing but warming the globe.  Why should we be trying to stop the spread of AIDS in a population that is so ignorant they think having sex with a virgin will cure them?

Heck .. let's do away with all this aid, and Whallah ... you instantly knocked out a few Billion humans in less than 6 mo.

Because that is seriously unethical, whereas simply having no children is not unethical. Think before you speak, or in this case, post.