tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post8290527016723132029..comments2023-10-06T10:17:06.737-04:00Comments on Thou and Thou Only: Ridiculous Article: "Might Our Religion Be Killing Us?"Harmonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15105846442509828835noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-60083990095373400792008-04-25T13:19:00.000-04:002008-04-25T13:19:00.000-04:00I'll never understand that argument that large fam...I'll never understand that argument that large families hurt the planet. In my experience, large families have fewer monetary resources due to feeding/clothing/transporting/housing so many people. Smaller families tend to be the big consumers. IMO, gluttonous consumption is our planet's biggest environmental problem right now. Maybe if we weren't so obsessed with making cheap stuff, buying that stuff inexpensively, then throwing it away, we'd find our planet in nicer shape. <BR/><BR/>But blaming problems on large families just sounds like scapegoating. Gotta blame <I>someone</I>. <BR/><BR/>I really fail to see what women's and gay rights have to do with the health of our planet, unless he's trying to say that fewer children will be produced if there are more gay couples and women working. It's a rather weak argument.Anne Marie@Married to the Empirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16600919522369171555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37491865.post-72790362859276050852008-04-22T09:24:00.000-04:002008-04-22T09:24:00.000-04:00"Even if we stop producing harmful greenhouse gase...<I>"Even if we stop producing harmful greenhouse gases immediately, temperatures could continue to rise and ocean levels along with them for the next 1,000 years."</I><BR/><BR/>From what I understand of all of this, that estimate is based on the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. The point seems to be that we've already done X amount of irreversible damage, and whatever we do from now on may be irreversible as well.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I really, really don't see what allowing women and homosexuals in the ministry has to do with conservation. Maybe Thomas feels strongly about those issues as well, but they really have nothing to do with his point about family size or environmentalism. If we're going to be stereotyping, I'd have to say that the families I know with more children actually use fewer resources per child than smaller families.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the U.S. birth rate is still <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#The_American_exception" REL="nofollow">less than the replacement rate</A> and climbing only slightly (meaning our population would be shrinking if not for immigration). China has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. And yet the U.S. and China are some of the worst polluters of the environment. It seems obvious to me (anyone else?)that something besides family size is the real problem here.Laurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00030815071294070061noreply@blogger.com