Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Big Family Flick-off continued

Today may very well be a multiple post day. There are so many things grinding my gears that I will need to use this blog as a forum to decompress.

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?

5 comments:

Mary said...

Joanne, you said:
"Natives and immigrants are replacing themselves. Their children will surely look after them in their old age.
Who will look after you?"

Exactly, not only who will look after them in their old age, but some of the immigrants pay no attention to the flap over having babies. They are replacing themselves and are replacing you as well and are paying no attention to those who worry about carbon footprints.
In fact the footprints they will make in the future will squash out of existence the very carbon conscious ones that are now the green crowd.

Canadi-anna said...

One of the problem with this sort of 'non-breeder' is they often have an inordinate amount of influence on education.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Canadianna - Good point. And thus their legacy carries on.

Anonymous said...

so, you are saying the only reason to have children is to have someone to look after you in your old age?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anon, I was expecting a comment like that, which is why the post included this disclaimer:

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.

But thanks for reading and taking the time to give me some feedback. That is always appreciated.