OT: Stop Climate Change... NBC: Believers should stop having children...

False dichotomy. It's like seeing a tree in your car's path: you can hit the tree, or you can renounce car ownership.

I'm clever enough to think of other alternatives, like steering the car. It's not possible, however, to match the clickbait title by dropping false dichotomy.

Darwin would point out that this would give non-believers an evolutionary a dvantage, and should thus be coupled with an injunction to thin out the non

-believers. Since non-believers would propagate - if unchecked - to numbers that would make the earth uninhabitable even for them, this would be doing a service for them that they would be too incompetent to do for themselves .

Mewanwhile, back in reality, even unbelievers as dim or as willfully ignora nt as John Larkin and Jim Thompson respectively are going to get persuaded that anthropogenic global warming is real at some point - when it gets bad enough to become obvious even to them - and they will start doing something to minimise and eventually reverse it.

Having fewer children is part of the mix. Most civilised countries are now breeding at roughly the replacement rate - the US isn't all that civilised yet, but it will happen eventually, probably after they trade in their tota lly obsolete constitution for something a trifle more modern, and move over from rapacious plutocracy (who fancy having more consumers to buy their pr oducts) to representative democracy (which is a little wiser).

If you think about it it's hard to come up with great reasons to have a bunch of kids, anyway. Many of the reasons that people give fall apart logically with the slightest objective thought. If pushed you might get "Propagating the species is a biological drive most people have" which isn't terribly convincing either; I have "biological drives" to do all sorts of things. My biology would seem to prefer that I eat cheeseburgers for every meal if left to its own devices, that doesn't mean it's a great idea.

Kind of like how there's very little good reason to own a dog or a cat as a non-working housepet. It's a large amount of work and expense to get back whatever it is you get back out of having a mammal pet, some pet owners call it "love" but it's not actual love; a dog isn't terribly particular and will love anyone that gives it steak on the regular I guarantee it

I happen to like children.

You're clueless... and it's fortunate that you feel the way you do... I'd hate to see what cretin-level offspring you'd produce.

We had four children... all grown up to be conservatives.

They had eight children, most now adults... conservatives every one of them.

We're now at three great-grandchildren and counting.

Judging from the young men my four unmarried granddaughters are dating, there's more conservatives to come.

Some English king, lamenting the troubles he was having dealing with the Scots, decided, if he couldn't beat them, "... we'll breed them out"... as a family, we're doing our best to "breed out" the leftist scum >:-} ...Jim Thompson

Sounds like my descendants will out-number yours.

Not terribly unusual, given that giving birth is one of the most non-unusual human activities that occurs literally 10,000 times an hour.

If your "count" stands at a total of 15 over half a century I'd say y'all got your work cut out for ya then

Hey, maybe so! Are they giving out an award for that or something?

Yes. The reward is having your genes endure.

Things that don't breed lose that contest.

What a weird game. I don't recall signing any contract that said my purpose in life is to live-action roleplay a bacteria in exchange for a "reward" I won't even be around for!

There are 7 billion reasons for having fewer children.

It's entirely possible, the families I descend from are overwhelmingly from West Virginia, historically.

Your parents should have figured that out.

And don't seem to be capable of objective thought any place outside of elec tronics.

That would make it a heritable genetic defect. Granting the way Jim is "con servative", which seems to be uncritically accepting any kind of nonsense a s long as it is published on a right-wing web-site, "gullible" might be clo ser to what is actually going on.

Or at least smart enough to sound conservative when their grandfather is ar ound.

If we were trust Jim's judgement, which isn't impressive.

Replacing them with rightist scum might strike Jim as the right thing to do , but a more rational ambition might have been to breed kids who could thin k for themselves. Jim probably wouldn't see any advantage in that, even if he had the genetic endowment to make it possible - he does seem to have bee n endowed with a bit too much of the tendency pull the forelock and agree w ith whoever looks as though they are in power.

"Respecting" Joe Arpaio isn't the kind of mistake that would be made by any body who felt free to do joined up thinking about politicians.

e:

hit the tree, or

r. It's not

otomy.

They have to survive to do that. Since neither Jim nor John Larkin accepts the reality of anthropogenic global warming, their descendants are going to buy houses on nice cheap land close to the coast, and get drowned by the n ext big storm surge. Zero doesn't outnumber zero.

Statistically, we'd all have been better off if they had. I don't claim that I'm better than anyone else. It's just math. If you're gonna save the planet, you can't take it personally.

Nature weeds out people with your attitude. That's why we have people.

Bitrex is one sick loony. Just about every other of his posts has the phrase "...getting laid".

Bitrex has no clue about relationships.

I hope to hell he never reproduces. ...Jim Thompson

That's an assumption. Nature weeds out loads of people for a whole variety of different reasons.

If you don't have any kids you won't propagate, but if you have too many you don't pay enough attention to any of them, and they end up like Jim Thompson, who thinks that he has lots of grand-children (and may possibly be correct).