For now let's focus on a few amusing letters in today's National Post, which will hopefully serve as a continuation of yesterday's discussion about the perceived environmental irresponsibility of having large families.
Yesterday's post started off focusing on the Suzuki Foundation's utter shock and disbelief regarding a poll that suggested Canadians would not be willing to sell their souls for the sake of the environment, but quickly morphed into a discussion about the social disease of having children, especially several, after I posted a link to Jonathan Kay's op-ed as an update.
Read Kay's column if you haven't already, then enjoy the letters. Here are snippets from my favourites:
My response to Gaby Kaplan and his anti-procreation crowd would be the following: Who do you think is going to wipe up your nether parts when you become a geriatric assmonkey during your second childhood a few decades from now?...
- Ruth Dubin, Kingston
As the father of two well-behaved "assmonkeys," I tip my hat to Mr. Kay for his comments about the obnoxious lunacy of the "child-free" movement.
Frankly, I find it hard to get too upset about these people. After all, the trend appears to be exclusive to left-leaning, hemp-wearing, egocentric tree huggers, and we should be thankful that some members of that peculiar demographic are doing their level best to pare back their corner of the herd...
D.A. Neill, Ottawa.
And on a more serious note:
By far the most dangerous aspect of the so-called "green agenda" is the undercurrent of socialism. This green agenda would quickly move to restrictions (in the name of morality) on numbers of children (carbon producers), how many families live in a common space (to save energy) and where you live (next to the factory so you don't have to drive).
Those pushing the green agenda are not interested in our freedom nor our welfare. They are interested in their cause...
Rob MacDonald, Calgary.
It would seem that the Kyoto Krowd's fixation on zero population growth runs contrary to our need to sustain ourselves as a country in terms of demographics. However, Red Tory makes the point in the previous thread that attempting to encourage larger families through incentives runs against the Conservative view of hands-off government:
...Incentivizing reproductive behaviour and putting in place measures to provide an environment more inclined to facilitate larger families through various social welfare programs targeted in this direction are all things that are an anathema to the “conservative” creed...
Well, I can think of a lot of things this government is doing that would appear to be against "conservative creed", but the point is that this is one more example where the environmental extremists' philosophy seems to be somewhat antithetical to our economic needs as a country.
To be sure there are other more emotional reasons for having children, but I am just looking at this as an issue of pragmatics for now.
As Baby Boomers continue to rely more heavily on the social and medical network for assistance, who is going to pay for it? Natives and immigrants are replacing themselves. Their children will surely look after them in their old age.
Who will look after you?