(no subject)
Jan. 11th, 2004 04:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
htothehSo I'm doing research for this ridiculous APES paper, and I find this article on overpopulation.com about China's one child policy. Cool, I think. That's good info. Read it, scrolled down to the bottom, clicked on the "Discuss" link. And was promptly very scared.
<a href="http://www.overpopulation.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=393>The first response</a> was from a guy whose major point was that child limits are stupid, because having lots of children is good, and children don't cause poverty anyway, poor economies do, and even in rural areas, people can make Internet businesses using computers and satellite dishes. I want to know if he's even aware of the fact that he apparently has no brain, or, if he does, is not using it. Yes, more children do cause poverty. If a family doesn't have enough money to feed one kid, they are going to be able to feed three... how? And I'm not even touching the idea that people in rural areas just need to know how to be entrepreneurs to be successful. Going to do real research now... (E(much later)TA: the link still goes to that article; the apparently infuriating message is, however, no longer first.)
<a href="http://www.overpopulation.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=393>The first response</a> was from a guy whose major point was that child limits are stupid, because having lots of children is good, and children don't cause poverty anyway, poor economies do, and even in rural areas, people can make Internet businesses using computers and satellite dishes. I want to know if he's even aware of the fact that he apparently has no brain, or, if he does, is not using it. Yes, more children do cause poverty. If a family doesn't have enough money to feed one kid, they are going to be able to feed three... how? And I'm not even touching the idea that people in rural areas just need to know how to be entrepreneurs to be successful. Going to do real research now... (E(much later)TA: the link still goes to that article; the apparently infuriating message is, however, no longer first.)
