Sunday, April 27, 2008


Best blog posts in the blogosphere last week (by a country mile).

1, 2, 3

Along those lines, you know what the most environmentally helpful thing you can possibly do? Not have kids!


spew-it-all said...

Vernellism on the way!

I fail to recognise the link between having babies and threat to environment. According to Vernelli, an environmental activist, having babies are selfish and means that they only think about the future of their genetic line. She goes on by saying that more food, water, pollution is some consequences of having babies.

Following her logic, we therefore should be thankful to USA that wages the war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. More wars means less babies. Don't worry too much about how people in wealthier countries consume more food than they need.

Poverty in developing countries shouldn't be be solved as it only burdens wealthier countries that have got nothing to do with the problem. But if we'd like to help, it is about massaging our philantrophic ego or showing a little bit the side of our civilisation.

Still following her logic, babies are more dangerous than Freeport in Indonesia. Dumping waste to the river where local people depend their life on is absolutely brilliant idea than having five babies....

Oh i am celebrating the demise of humanity...!!!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

What a party the demise of humanity will be!! :)

Well I was thinking along the lines of not worrying about the exponentially increasing carbon emissions of potential ancestors; and instead buying big cars, eating Brazilian beef, putting my feet up on Borneo hardwood tables and flying long haul frequently :)

And afterall that, perhaps i'll adopt a coterie of kids, no use crying over spilt sperm, eh?