[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]

In defense of future generations.

Observations from the Edge
Robert T. Nanninga
Buzz Publications
January 11, 2007


I am trying to figure out how to make the case for non-breeding as the fashionable choice for young Americans. In this discussion sexual orientation is irrelevant, and all that matters is more people having less babies as a matter of choice. An ecological choice.

And when I say having less babies, I mean making less babies. Adoption, not abortion, abortitives not abortions. Family planning as a cultural imperative. And restraint.

Population mitigation should be about eduction. Population control is about teaching children to understand they inherit an unstable future, and preparing them for it. Fewer children, healthier and smarter, stand a better chance of survival than numerous children surviving on less

As a social species it is up to humanity to make the population connection between numbers and nature. A somewhat intelligent species, we must reevaluate our need to breed. Smaller families require less resources over the lifetime of the family members than larger families. The choice begins before conception. It that's easy.

The environmental choice is foregoing reproduction. Adults that feel the need to raise children should be encouraged into teaching and health care. The fostering of young lives does not have to be biological. Non-breeders should be celebrated for their wisdom, not denied the opportunities to adopt. Nor should orphans be denied parental protection.

Regular reading of a newspaper, any newspaper, offers more than enough evidence that the future is poised to be a very dangerous place, as billions of humans fight over room and resources, in a warming world. Why I don't get is why anyone would want to subject innocent children to a hell not of their making, yet made more tenuous by their added existence.

There should be absolutely no government involvement in reproductive rights. And non breeders should lead the way, as they obviously have a better sense of things. Tax credits should favor non-breeders over breeders. A consumption tax on all commercial goods would reduce family size, and reduce the the impact on supportive ecosystems.

As western civilization reaches the sustainable limits of industrialization with the end of the petroleum paradigm, energy independence will require the use of considerable less energy. Less people require less energy. More people fighting over less resources isn't in anybodies long term interest.

The choice of food or fuel is not that far off. A choice most adults will be ill-equipped to make, imagine the added burden of providing for numerous children when unable to provide for yourself. Talk about child abuse.

To avoid compounding future hardships for future generations it is vital that current generations step back from the trap of overpopulation. If Madison Avenue, through mainstream media, can glamorize dirty diapers, and greedy children. It could easily sell young people on the benefits of remaining childless, and abstinence as a commitment to a sustainable future.

I look forward to the day teenage pregnancy is recognized as the realm of selfish ignorance. I look forward to the day when young people lead us away from the catastrophe the breeders are creating.

I look forward when young people say no to over.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]