Andy Cap wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:56:20 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why should those on better incomes who have carefully NOT had children,
be required to take care of the spendthrift poor who copulate like
rabbits? And so end up equally poor and miserable?

Totall agree. I don't think I ever suggested those without children should
subsidise those with.

I wouldn't start claiming moral high ground if I were you. People
standing with their noses in the air on moral high ground are and easy
target for a Kalashnikov.

There's no issue of moral high ground. Just, what's the point of populating the
world to the point where there aren't enough resources and space for everyone to
enjoy their life, even if they are doing a mundane, yet necessary job ?

I have never found any point to life at all.

The species is biologically constrained to screw and have babies.

Normally disease, famine, internecine warfare and predators would
counteract that.

Civilisation's main thrust has been to render the above obsolete.

Up to a higher level of population anyway.


So, instead we have the strong likelihood that people will starve or
freeze to death, die of disease, or die of internecine warfare.. ;-)



Andy