Scientist: No One Has the Right to Have as Many Children as They Want

Here’s a hot topic, and one that we’ve visited many, many times before here in the United States: Population growth. Anyone remember the Zero Population Growth movement of the sixties and seventies? I wonder how many ZPG activists have children (and grandchildren) of their own now? I’m not a dad, myself, and am pretty much sure that I’ll never be. What about you parents? How do you feel about population growth and control? What about the rest of you? How would we ever enforce such a thing, anyway?

Via Raw Story:

A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”

“The only criticism we’ve had on the paper is that it’s too optimistic,” said Paul Ehrlich, Bing professor of population studies at Stanford University and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. “You can’t negotiate with nature.”

The study, published the Proceedings of the Royal Society B journal earlier this month says that climate change is “driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens‘ aggregate consumption.”

Keep reading.


84 Comments on "Scientist: No One Has the Right to Have as Many Children as They Want"

  1. lazy_friend | Jan 22, 2013 at 8:54 pm |

    Oh boy… Everytime I have a discussion on this topics it becomes a shit show. I can only choose for myself and I choose not to have kids at least at this point in my life. Seems like all my ex girlfriends are popping out kids with random doods they just met and had an unplanned pregnancy. I feel that my choice of not wanting a child was the reason the relationships disintegrated. I feel we are still primitive and wired to live in a harsh world, where reproducing fast was needed for survival as life expectancy was much much shorter, but with all the technology making life a longer term event, its becoming a problem. I feel its the woman’s choice once the baby is inside her, no longer in my hands. I can only stop myself from planting the seeds, as hard as it is (pun). If we don’t correct ourselves, nature sure will correct the problem by force. Pretending that over population is not a problem is ignorance tho. I could hypnotize people, as there are no laws on hypnotism. My guppies have 40 to 50 babies every 30 days with every conception, they dont need the males to reproduce for 3 or more pregnancies after being inseminated. They eat some of the babies and I have to cull the rest and only keep the best specimens, so I don’t have an over population ruining the water quality. In the wild this high number of births is good because only a few survive the dangers from predators, but in a closed system like an aquarium, it becomes a huge problem. If this is how people want things to be like in the not so distant future they can keep this rate up, I choose to stop myself, I love my potential children too much to watch them suffer in this harsh world, plus there can be only one highlander!!! Just my opinion don’t h8.

  2. InfvoCuernos | Jan 22, 2013 at 10:24 pm |

    War used to be the way to control population, until we figured out how to get robots to kill for us.

  3. JoiquimCouteau | Jan 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm |

    If people had fulfilling lives to begin with, they wouldn’t need to have children.

  4. Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness | Jan 22, 2013 at 11:39 pm |

    This is a problem that solves itself in time. Don’t be comforted by that.

  5. No kids for me. I’m responsible enough to know that I’m irresponsible.

  6. What an old argument. It just doesn’t want to go away. It belongs in the same category as controlling other people’s affairs through violence (aka government). It may happen at first depending on how many guns you got, but it certainly won’t last forever. People will ALWAYS do their own shit no matter how much other people wish. Resistance is futile, bitchez; give it up. Just grow your own food and stop stressing about other people’s shit.

    • Jin The Ninja | Jan 23, 2013 at 7:56 pm |

      this is my thought as well. women’s reproductive rights are far too fragile already. any str8 cis dude with half a brain would recognise perhaps it’s best NOT to try to control other people’s biological functions. anyway the entire discussion of overpopulation is rooted in a racialised anti-third world agenda. not feeling it.

      • Yes, definitely, an agenda behind what would seem like an ‘innocuous’ argument for ‘saving our ecosystem’. Bookchin mercilessly assaulted Paul Ehrlich and his ilk for propagating this ‘population myth’. Here’s some good reads i know you’ll get into:

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 24, 2013 at 2:04 am |

          i m a huge bookchinite. basically all my anarchist leanings are derived mainly from him. (with anarcha-feminism, anarcha-daoism, anarcho-indigenism thrown in for good measure) it’s like you knew exactly what i was referring to when i said the above (the ehrilch-bookchin debate). thanks for the link though, it’s always good to have on hand.

      • We don’t need eugenics, we need eumemics.

      • kowalityjesus | Jan 24, 2013 at 2:58 am |

        The Amish are one of the fastest growing populations in the world. We don’t hear about the need to curb their growth, but why is that? Is it because they are white, or is it because they are self-sufficient?

        • TennesseeCyberian | Jan 24, 2013 at 5:12 am |

          Because there still aren’t very many of them.

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 24, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

          probably both. but the truth is many people in the third are not reliant on food aide/are subsistence farmers. regardless, a family of 6 living in a favela in rio uses 1/6th to 1/10th resources than a suburban american family of 4.

      • TennesseeCyberian | Jan 24, 2013 at 5:11 am |

        ” the entire discussion of overpopulation is rooted in a racialised anti-third world agenda.”

        You know, in the days of Malthus that would not have been true. But these days, I would say that you are exactly right, whether it is conscious or not.

        That being said, I’m all about saving the elephants, dolphins, and tigers. People be damned.

        • In the days of Malthus, this argument was a justification for the ‘enlightened’ distribution of resources via capitalism–it’s ironic that when people disparagingly refer to ‘socialism’ as a ‘wealth-redistribution scheme’, it’s actually the effect of capitalism they have in mind; they just don’t recognize it as such. Malthus’ influence remains so entrenched. It’s a shame that his contemporary critique, William Godwin (no relation to me, that I know of), has been neglected as much as he has.

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 24, 2013 at 3:05 pm |

          malthusians and neo-malthusians were/ are racist and eurocentric, but of course i’m right regardless.

      • Curious pro-choice people attack both religious pronatalists and also population control advocates.

        Because when you consider that population is a commons, and peoples sexual and reproductive choices affect everyone, there’s truth in both sides – and only selfishness in individual reproductive ‘rights’ when they infringe upon the good of the community,

    • Government may or may not always be violent, but violence is not always governmental.

      • Government is always violent. There are _no_ exceptions to this. Indeed, political scientists still use Max Weber’s original definition of the state as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

        • lazy_friend | Jan 23, 2013 at 11:57 pm |

          I’d say I can only influence people via my actions and words, force others to comply? No, that is totally wrong. And I take into account the potential for racism behind such proposed legislation. Like I said in my post “I can only choose for myself”. Do whatever the “F” you want to do.

        • The second part of my sentence was my point.

        • Think Harder | Jan 24, 2013 at 10:56 am |

          Call it “violence” if you must, but would you agree that there are moments when it is still necessary and appropriate for an outside force to intercede?

          • That’s a loaded and manipulative question. I would be dismissed as ‘naive’ if I were to answer ‘no’, because you could come back with any number of ‘moments’ that any sane person would wish for outside help (force?) to ameliorate–e.g. child about to be murdered, wife about to be raped, blah blah. If I were to answer ‘yes’, then this apparently negates my previous argument against the legitimacy of government violence. Those are your strawman terms, aren’t they?

            You have an appropriate handle, because you ought to think harder about your relationship with government. If you think the monopoly on violence held by government has anything to do with ‘interceding’ to save you or someone you love from harm, then your depth of insight into the role government plays in our lives is of doubt.

          • Think Harder | Jan 24, 2013 at 4:33 pm |

            Sigh…it was not meant to be “manipulative”. I was asking a serious question: At what point do we – as a rational and sane civilization, as a caring and empathetic society, as an efficient and thoughtful species – come together and agree that certain things are simply no longer acceptable? And I’m sorry, but I cannot think of anything more serious than our current drain on natural resources. It effects everything, from the environment which we are raping and polluting, to the health of those individuals who are not given equal access to said resources.

            We are a vile and petty race…fearful and lazy…hoarding what few resources remain instead of distributing them equally, all because of a made-up concept called “money”. I want for nothing more than to see the current system collapse under the weight of its own greed, hypocrisy, and selfishness, so that we can then hopefully replace it with something which is much more transparent and fair.

            And yes, I do think long and hard about these sorts of things, all the time. Am sorry that I have not yet come to the same conclusions as you, but if there are things that we can do now (even if they do seem harsh) then I think we should consider them, so long as everyone benefits equally from their implementation. If that makes me a bad person and/or crazy, then so be it…

  7. Greg Weinstein | Jan 23, 2013 at 1:34 am |

    No one has the right to tell me how many fucking kids to have. I want two, I’m having two.

    • Think Harder | Jan 24, 2013 at 10:52 am |

      Fine, have as many kids as you want. But you should be taxed through the roof for each and every one, seeing as how they are going to be consuming the natural resources which we all have to share. And if you cannot pay your Kid Tax? Then your kids will be taken away from you and you will be forced to undergo sterilization to make sure that you cannot have any more.

  8. "Big" Richard Johnson | Jan 23, 2013 at 1:58 am |

    We need a natural predator.

    Mass shooters? Bankers? Mario Lopez?

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm |

      Step outside the territory of state sanctioned behavior and you will find predators a plenty.

      • "Big" Richard Johnson | Jan 23, 2013 at 1:51 pm |

        This is true. But what will catch the average man on the street? Besides a mistaken drone strike, anyway.

      • I think there’s plenty of predators _inside_ state sanctioned territory already, no?

        • Calypso_1 | Jan 24, 2013 at 11:31 am |

          Yes, but i am more likely to have viable & sanctioned recourse in such scenarios. In addition the character that must be crafted for such response is more to my likeing than the servility & abeyance of individual rights required for avoidance of the former.

      • TennesseeCyberian | Jan 24, 2013 at 5:08 am |

        Too many people who are just asking for it forget that it’s right around the corner.
        What bugs me out more often than anything are the incidents, both presently and potentially, of the state-sanctioned behavior being predatory. I mean, it’s not that bad…yet.

  9. kowalityjesus | Jan 23, 2013 at 2:13 am |

    I’m disappointed to hear that you do not anticipate having kids, Matt. I just had this exchange with my roommate tonight. You owe it to your ancestors to make a baby or 4. Every one of your ancestors did not fail to breed, why break the chain? I want my azimuthal [read: distant, upon the horizon] progeny to live in a world where MAtt Staggses are running around.

    The problem with voluntary reproductive secession is that everyone with the conscientiousness to know that they should not breed, should absolutely breed.

    • $23802000 | Jan 23, 2013 at 4:56 am |

      Yes, you’ve absolutely nailed the dilemma. The people with enough awareness and conscientiousness to know that they ‘should not’ breed are precisely the people who ought to be raising the next generation. The people who really shouldn’t breed will not stop voluntarily, and must be coerced. Such is the unfortunate nature of things, or else we will keep hurtling towards the cliff with reckless abandon.

    • Rex Vestri | Jan 23, 2013 at 9:41 am |

      But, sadly, the opposite is all-too-often true, and it is the dipshits that wind up popping out a dozen little new dipshits.


    • Tchoutoye | Jan 23, 2013 at 10:07 am |

      “You owe it to your ancestors…”

      Owing to dead people is silly nonsense. It makes more sense to feel you owe to future humans by leaving them a more sustainable, (as in less densely populated) ecosystem.

      “…a world where MAtt Staggses are running around.”

      Presuming you mean people with Matt’s kind of attitude, this is culturally determined not genetically.

      • kowalityjesus | Jan 23, 2013 at 11:44 pm |

        Are you saying that you do not receive cultural inculcation from your parents, and you don’t bear any resemblance to your genetic haplogroup?
        I owe it to my ancestors and to posterity to reproduce and train my children to use toilet paper efficiently as an example to all society, like my father before me.

    • Tough shit.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 23, 2013 at 1:32 pm |

      I found delight in your terminology for projective progenitoriety.

      • kowalityjesus | Jan 24, 2013 at 2:08 am |

        Thanks, azimuthal is definitely one of my very favorite words. Truly, the grace of God is upon us!

    • Matt Staggs | Jan 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm |

      Hahah! I come from a long line of drunks, suicides and ne’er do-wells. Me? Sui generis.

  10. $23802000 | Jan 23, 2013 at 4:54 am |

    Look, I know its a slippery slope to give the government this kind of power, but we all know that theres a loooot of people out there who shouldn’t be reproducing, and they just so happen to tend to be the people who reproduce the MOST. Meanwhile people with good genes (IE intelligence) are usually too busy pursuing their careers or being responsible and waiting until they’ve got all their ducks lined in a row to start having kids (and if and when they do have them, they have 1 or 2 not 4 or 5). The current state of affairs is blood poisoning: every generation is getting worse than the one that preceded it, not only culturally but genetically. Not only is there overpopulation, but the quality of that population is dropping.

  11. on a personal level, im adopted and i don’t know my “real” parents – yet i also have no desire to be a parent other than that of an adopted “foster” parent to a child already physically present in the world. it is selfish to believe your wisdom and life lessons can be passed on to none other than the exact fruit of your loins. nurturing an already living thing is more challenging and more beneficial for humanity than just creating a life via 9 months of martyrdom.

  12. I agree, i don’t think people should have as many children as they like, its like that family with 16 children not each one of them could possibly have all the attention they crave/deserve when competing with 15 other children. Aside from that it is selfish, there is no way you need so many children regardless of if you can support yourself financially the planet simply cannot take it. So i think there should be a limit of 3 and then you get sterilized/your child gets taken into care and given to a family that wants but cannot have children. This would resemble china’s policy but i mean come on, 3 kids means you can give them all due attention and you’re not being selfish and enables the population to be controlled to some degree. I know a girl younger than me (by the time she was 20) had three kids, where does it end?

  13. DeepCough | Jan 23, 2013 at 12:21 pm |

    [general Nazi accusation]

    • "Big" Richard Johnson | Jan 24, 2013 at 7:17 pm |

      I’m glad I didn’t do anything Nazi-ish. I’m only advocating for the release of predators such as bears and tigers into population centers.

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 24, 2013 at 9:13 pm |

        Re-wilding. Yet another aspect of Agenda 21 Ruling-Elite bloodlines. The Baronies of Ursine and Tigrine shapeshifters will feast on the blood of the masses in a culling orgy of gory delight.

  14. Everybody argues that they have the right to reproduce, but nobody asks the children if they really want to be born.

    • lazy_friend | Jan 23, 2013 at 6:21 pm |

      I say that to my mother all the time when she is being manipulative and over the top. Reverse guilt trip. Should not have raised me catholic.

  15. Kevin Leonard | Jan 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm |

    Well, it is obvious that sex is the cause of overpopulation. The government should ban sex.

  16. I find it a bit disconcerting to feel that ones self is unworthy to reproduce when that notion is partly based on others cynicism and sophomoric reasoning. Actually, that is insulting yet disenchanting in that we may clearly see the motives of those pushing the “I’m okay; you’re not okay” trope.

  17. National Mandatory Sterilization Lottery. Everyone in (politicians, CEO’s, adults, children, men, women, illegals) some percentage get drawn to achieve desired population growth rate. No discrimination as drawing is random. Random drawing insures full representation of gene pool so no eugenic effect. Population will drop simply by losing those who leave the country to avoid lottery! those who remain will reap the benefits of less competition for dwindling resources, jobs, space. Immigrants must have the procedure to get in the country slowing influx down. Jealousy from those who lose? Sure, but think of the unlimited pool of babysitters for those who win!

  18. Matt Staggs | Jan 23, 2013 at 8:56 pm |

    You guys are cracking me up today. Great comments on this thread.

  19. kowalityjesus | Jan 24, 2013 at 12:04 am |

    I am loath to allow Malthus anywhere near the core of my philosophy, and I maintain that the ‘sapiens sapiens’ aspect of any cog in society is able under the correct conditions to carry the torch of all but the loftiest academic notions. This being said, a citizen that does not contradict the entropic decay of humanity must be marginalized in order to allow those that would to march ahead.

    It may be a rather uncommon combination, but I am a libertarian, Catholic environmentalist.

    • > a citizen that does not contradict the entropic decay of humanity must be marginalized

      Does that include those of us who opt not to breed?

      • kowalityjesus | Jan 24, 2013 at 12:51 am |

        not necessarily, and often quite to the contrary. To be the moth that dives into the candle and becomes the wick carries a preternatural nobility.

  20. Equality, birth control and education solves it without having to enforce anything. When we had that here in Sweden, we still have some remnants of it left, they had to do the opposite of enforcing limitation on childbirth and try to beg, buy and threat people into making more babies. I think the rate of birth is still to low to feed the economic growth here.

    So liberate your women, give sexual education and overall good and free education to everyone, free healthcare, good pensions, strong unions, high taxes on the rich and lots of opportunities for personal development and very few people will have more than one or two kids.

    Not in the interest of the unlimited growth economy to limit the number of consumers, debtors and workers though, war and religious anti contraceptives is more lucrative than social justice and equality I guess.

  21. Think Harder | Jan 24, 2013 at 11:14 am |

    China has the right idea on this one. One child only. But you could and should take it a step further: Before having that child, you must apply for a licence, comprised of the same hoops and hurdles which prospective adopters have to jump through: Can you afford this child? Do you have a history of violence/drug use/mental illness/etc. And just because you aren’t issued a license the first time, does not mean you could not apply again, later on when you are at a more balanced point in your life. Unlicensed parents would risk having their kids taken away. Repeat offenders risk forced sterilization. Cue the wambulance in three-two-one…

    Or you could even bypass the possibility of unlicensed births: When a young boy hits puberty, have him make a few generous sperm donations and then tie his tubes. Also, for parents who want more than one kid, fine…assuming you can afford the tax hike that it will cost you. Because your children are sucking up and devouring natural resources which the rest of us have to share. These resources are currently finite and until we live in a post-scarcity society, you should have to pay your fair share for consumption. Those of us who have chosen NOT to have kids should be given tax breaks. The entire system is corrupt and backwards.

    And if you don’t believe that there is an overpopulation problem, then I’ve got a bridge in Jersey I’d like to sell you…

    • What an unfortunate soul you are. You fall so easily for the mainstream arguments for authoritarianism. The ‘overpopulation problem’ you refer to is a symptom of the forced shift to a consumer society. State-enforced capitalism has put us in a position where our productive energies are only valid if we are working for the System. It seems that every attempt is made by the System to prevent us from working outside its tentacles to produce for ourselves. 1 acre, properly managed, can allow a family of four to feed themselves. What stop this from happening? Government leeching at all levels.

      • Think Harder | Jan 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm |

        “1 acre, properly managed, can allow a family of four to feed themselves” OK…so every family of four gets an acre. Then their kids grow up and each one gets an acre of their own, and then each of them go on to have families of four. How long, exactly, till we run out of land? At some point, you have to cap it. And there is nothing wrong with discussing what should be done before we reach the point where we look around and realize: “Oh shit, we’re officially out of room and/or resources…what now?” Some of my ideas are admittedly a bit extreme (forcing boys to get their tubes tied, sterilizing parents who repeatedly break the rules) while some are practical and efficient (one child only policy, higher taxes for more kids, parental licensing). In any event, Matt asked how such a thing could be enforced and I gave several valid ideas, even if they are not ideal solutions.

        • Actually, there is plenty of arable land to support the earth’s population and there could be a lot more if we lived simpler lifestyles without the unnecessary accoutrements which only serve to line the pockets of those unfortunate souls who feel they need even more unnecessary accoutrements and are too lazy and proud to produce.
          There would be no reason to have an authority to cap it, nature can do that on her own. We just need to live a life that cooperates with and adapts to the land as opposed to strong arming and raping her. Of course, there are some people who have too much INVESTED in the “progressive” unsustainable lifestyle and condition the masses into believing the earth couldn’t sustain life without techno interference, which, mind you, IT HAS DONE JUST THAT FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS!!!
          I can not fathom why so many are so faithless and ignorant enough to think they need to impose their will on Life. I am definitely no feminist(according to the leftist definition), but such an attitude is symbolic of patriarchal domination as opposed to the attitude of cooperation with the Feminine.
          We should heed Jung’s advice soon on cooperating with are Anima. We don’t want to face her shadow side. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. The Earth is that scorned and scorched woman. And our lives depend on her. No amount of ingenuity will change that, I don’t care how far we “progress”.
          Mind you, this rant is not coming from a nature worshipping new ager. My perception resonates more with ancient gnostics, who worshipped the Transcendental Other.

  22. Apathesis | Jan 24, 2013 at 6:34 pm |

    Controlling who can reproduce is wrong. Sterilizing anyone against their will is wrong. But when you have thirteen kids you can’t provide for, how wrong is it to forcibly sterilize the offending party?

    What about nine kids when you’re already on public assistance and have sued CVS because of allegedly expired spermicide:?

    If forced sterilization upsets you (it should), does routine infant circumcision upset you? Not comparing them as equals, just comparing them on the basis that both procedures go against the will of the “patient.”

    There’s plenty of unloved and lonely children out there desperate for a loving family. I don’t want kids for many reasons, but if I were to have children, they certainly would be adopted.

    And no, I wouldn’t call them a “rescue.”

    • Yes life in this world sucks and is fraught with suffering. Does it mean life should be exterminated off the face of the earth, though?
      No, because there is always hope. This is the reason I do not support abortion. Just because an individual will be born in a world of suffering, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be born at all. If that is what you believe, then you might as well say all life is hopeless and should be exterminated, unless you are at least upper middle class or highr

      • As a gnostic, I intuit that the world was intentionally created as a prison of suffering(a prison for Light/Consciousness). I am actually divided on whether or not one should have children. It may be true that most of the ancient gnostics thought we shouldn’t, and perhaps did abort. Also many were celibate. They didn’t believe in suicide b/c they probably believed in reincarnation and didn’t think that was a solution. Rather acquaintance with the Transcendent was the solution and once one became acquainted, they’d renounce all worldly ambition and solely seek this Other.
        But there are other sects w/ additional ideas about the cosmos, particularly the Manichaeans who saw matter as evil, but the Good sabotaged Matter’s plans and caused the cosmos to be a factory of sorts to release Light back to its origins(very crude description, sorry). Therefore, it wasn’t wrong to have children because it was an opportunity for the Light to be released, paradoxically.
        So, whether or not children should be brought into this world which mostly functions as a prison of Consciousness, though at times is a school, is a tough decision for the selfless and conscious being. Nevertheless, it is never OK to kill, even if you think you will be releasing someone from suffering, even a baby, for hope springs eternal.

  23. There is no hope in making adjustments like this to the present system of things. If we really want to increase the quality of life for every being alive, we must begin not by imposing our will and tweaking an inherently flawed system, but cooperating with the Primal Order, which has precedence and will be antecedent.
    This cooperation with the Primal Order is up to individuals, mind you, not some future state to impose it through legislation. This cooperation is pragmatic, can be started immediately and doesn’t need to wait for others to start, although many already have been doing this for a while. It is also a more pleasant experience for the individual and has the benefit of being moral. It is what our sister Earth is asking from us, if we would only listen. She asks to be romanced, treated as a friend worthy of respect. She wants us to dance with her and create with her. She has much to offer. But I don’t pretend she is perfect, just as my mother is not perfect. I recognize her as the pale reflection of the Idea, but she still deserves our respect, admiration and cooperation

  24. Roger Mexico | Jan 24, 2013 at 10:04 pm |

    News flash–anyone with less than three children isn’t part of the problem by definition. (“Replacement level” population growth is zero-sum.) Birthrates of two or fewer children per couple are already standard across most of the industrialized world. And in fact it’s true that a birthrate too far below replacement level creates societal problems–Japan is already staring down a retiree population growing much faster than the supply of new workers to fund end-of-life medical care for them. They might even be facing a shortage of doctors to provide all this medical care.

    Don’t have kids if you don’t want to, but I’ve only got one and I didn’t make him by myself. He’s a nice kid, and if he ends up doing your hip replacement surgery while you’re still whinging about how he’s a parasite and I shouldn’t have brought him into this world, you can thank me afterwards.

  25. Here I’ll drop links connecting to Orson Scott Card’s “Ender’s Game”.

    Ender was born as a “third” in a world where only two children were the legal norm. Exceptions were usually for “bad” reasons.

    Orson Scott Card (an LDS / Mormon) has been attuned to the considerations of global or planetary human civilization for a long time. He also produced this haunting short-film/comic for the “Zombie Apocalypse” movie: I Am Legend (which itself is a story rooted in science fiction with connections to other interesting things but let me not digress too far afield):
    (find “Shelter” if it’s there and you’ll see the short)

    Hmmm… and it seems there may be a Hollywood version of “Ender’s Game” coming out now…

  26. People like Ehrlich forget we’re just another part of nature and life happens to us as to other animals. But though anything else is against nature, all rights and freedoms require terms to be set to them, to reduce suffering for others.

    Some people shouldn’t have kids though – people carrying severe hereditary defects or likely to abuse their children shouldn’t procreate. Nor should people who have already impregnated several women without paying child support. Or their female equivalents be allowed to carry on having kids if they’re receiving state benefits that they waste on too much drink or drugs.

Comments are closed.