Re: On to kids....

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Date: Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:50:41 PDT

Watch me jump another fence! (:

I was at a Gathering last 4th of July and a parade of gay guys walk
through the main circle with a banner that said something like "Don't
Breed" on it. I looked to my left and a woman stood there, a child
holding either of her hands. I knew there'd be problems. (: Shanta
Sena (something kind of like peace patrol) were called in, and I'm not
sure how things were resolved, as I did not go back to the main circle
during that Gathering, but the gist of it is this: It's a damned good idea
not to reproduce, as we only have a limited supply of everything, but if
you're good at it, or want to give it a try......well, that's not a right
I'd ever want taken away from me.... The reason I bring this up is
because, because of population concerns, etc, we should (there is that
word again) not be reproducing at the rate we are. Many governments have
set laws concerning this, and that frightens me. No, I don't think a
woman should have 12 children to get extra welfare, but YES, women who can
raist 12 children lovingly and patiently, the SO BE IT. In other words,
be careful about what you say. There are others that are translating it

 "A civilized society is one which tolerates eccentricity to the point of doubtful sanity."
          -- Robert Frost

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Adam L. Beberg wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > Yeah, yeah. How about this one. Setting aside all the wacky nanotech,
> > Singularity, and similar possibilities, BY FAR the most effective way to
> > propagate my genes *TODAY* is to simply go down and get paid to whack off
> > at the local sperm bank.
> *chuckles* even better.
> FoRK testimonies to the contrary, the people _I_ know with kids are not
> what I would classify as "Happy" (big H), busy, sleep deprived,
> stressed, financially stressed on the other hand...
> > PS - I was with you till the end of your message, but didn't parse the
> > "needs" bit or the "Bill" bit.
> Needs:
> I can spend a huge amount of time A) raising a couple rugrats, who will
> no doubt end up as liberal arts majors (I wouldn't wish geekdom on
> anyone) or I can B) spend it trying to make things better for the 6B
> humans and uncountable other lifeforms wandering around and in this big
> ball of dirt. I choose B (mostly by choice I think)
> Bill:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Bill Humphries wrote:
> > We can get back to arguing about Namespaces and RSS instead all
> > these intangibles about marriage and kids. :-)
> - Adam L. Beberg
> Mithral Communications & Design, Inc.
> The Cosm Project -
> -

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:56:07 PDT