2 ms·
Fine, but people that don't give a shit still reproduce. Result: More kids that don't give a shit, and less that do. She could better have 10 kids, so her kids
by tobyhinloopen 9y ago
Fine, but people that don't give a shit still reproduce. Result: More kids that don't give a shit, and less that do.
She could better have 10 kids, so her kids can "out-vote" the kids that don't give a shit, and they can put their head together to make a real change.
- cornholio 9y agoIf voting habits were genetic we could replace natural selection with electoral selection. In a sense, Europe experimented with that in the first half of the 20th century, didn't go well.
- smaudet 9y agoThis is the false assumption that your offspring think like you do - sure, it definitely helps, but if you want to have kids and operate in this way, you have to work a lot harder than just sending them to school. For a lot of people, they will have more effect doing things today and informing future generations than they could by having their own kids. That being said, if anyone is at all serious about carbon footprint reduction, the message should be clear - your job in life is less about how many kids you have, and more about how many other people you can stop having kids. Birth control is one big step, desensitized sex is another big one (more porn!), even more effective would be a child tax or even limit. A tax is more humane and would allow those who have generally lived better to produce more, anyways, than those idiots who 'dont care'
- mavdi 9y agoYou're incorrectly assuming that a shit giving parent will have shit giving kids.