I'm one of those stupid women not working in my acquired profession to raise my children when a perfectly adequate illegal Spanish-speaking nanny could do the work for me while I changed the world one spine at a time, so I'm already a
feminist failure. It gets worse. I'm not satisfied with the morally defensible family of four. There are
three Clouthier children. I'm just greedy that way. Not
Laurie David greedy, mind you. There are no private jets or pied-a-terres, but most excess resources go to feeding, clothing, educating, and entertaining those dirty little creatures--children. My husband drives a ten-year-old Chevy Malibu (long paid for) when he could drive a fancy schmancy hybrid which certainly counts as another sin. And then there is my gas-guzzling Suburban monster for which there is no defense besides it actually works for a big family. The sins keep coming. I voted for Bush,
twice, and there's just no atonement for that. I'll be suffering eternal Gaia damnation, and I toiled lo, these long years thinking that recycling would buy me some grace.
No. There's no grace for me. Or you, probably, either. The list of sins keeps growing.
About those
pesky kids:
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.
The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
What about divorce? I think the creation of two homes when one would do is selfishness beyond comprehension. Two McMansions instead of one. Two rooms of furniture for the two kids, killing untold rain forests.
Divorce creates the need for two lawyers and that's gotta be some kind of ec0-crime. Disproportionate predators and all that.
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Islamic fertility rate for both is somewhere around 5. i.e. Allah wipes out Gaia; where's Gaia's Salvation now?
EU = Future Islamic Republic of Eurabia.
You say: "I'm one of those stupid women not working in my acquired profession..."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're just one of those women that takes your motherhood responsibilities extreemly serious. Hats off to you for doing so. It also sets a very good example...especially because you're a doctor and you could be making a lot more money in your profession. This world is always looking for leaders...it has to be displayed in practicle ways. Thanks for doing just that.
Given that demographics are destiny, any country that takes the advice of these "experts" in hopes of saving the planet will likely live to regret it.
ReplyDeleteI'm alright out here [States] I can sort of blend in, but I notice a lot more when we visit 'home.' Just the dinky cars are enough to make me wince with guilt.
ReplyDeleteBest wishes
Gina,
ReplyDeleteThey'll most likely die and let the problem be taken care of by someone else's kids. And if their an environmentalist, they can feel morally superior while being a selfish pig. A win win!
Given that demographics are destiny, any country that takes the advice of these "experts" in hopes of saving the planet will likely live to regret it.
ReplyDeleteIncluding the Eurabian Mullah who's advice was for Muslims to "Conquer Europe with Our Wombs!"?