No "Green" without Population Control. There's too Much Brown!

There's a lot of blather about ecology and how to become "greener".

Stupid questions such as "Where should the city, county, state, country, world start working toward becoming a "greener" community ... world?" are continually asked. "What environmental issues should be given priority?"

Few are willing address the root cause of environmental problems. Politically incorrect. And those that do are labeled as racist, ungodly, or just anti-humanity.

"Green" is an issue simply because, one, there is too much brown -- that is, too much human waste of all kinds. And, two, too much energy and resource use. And the cause of those problems is simply out-of-control population growth almost everywhere.

Until the issue of out-of-control population growth is addressed by stopping it -- "green"? Fuggedaboudit.

Everyone's brown has to go somewhere. Everyone has to use energy and resources. Even if you reduce the amounts per person, the inexorable population growth means more brown to deal with, and dwindling energy and resources per person.

"Greening" attempts without population REDUCTION are like tilting at windmills. To get "green" will require changing religious attitudes towards birth control, abortion, and infanticide. To get "green" will require changing business and government attitudes about "growth is good" boosterism. To get "green" will require immediate ceasing of subsidizing litters of human spawn, which means ceasing funding for public schools, aid for dependent children, tax breaks for children, and other direct and indirect subsidies for breeding. You get more of anything you support and subsidize, and that especially includes children.

The only way to make a city, state, or country "green" is to make it child UNFRIENDLY. Deal with it!

You don't want to do what is necessary? Fine. Then forget "green". You can't have it both ways. Grow up and deal with it.

Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause without population control.

Single Mother Complaints About Finding a Man.

A single mother, 26 years old, with two kids, complains that she has found it impossible to get a guy to stick around. She says she is in good shape, and is probably an "8", maybe a "9". So what is wrong, she asks?

Well, what is wrong is that she has two kids already at age 26. Sorry to say, but that means she is screwed, and I don't mean sexually.

Even though she considers herself "hot", it is quite likely that most guys see her differently. And even if she is actually an "8" or "9" she is going to have to lower her sights drastically and settle for some guy that doesn't have much going for himself and/or is not nearly so good-looking as she thinks she is or that she thinks she deserves.

It's going to be a hard go to find some guy willing to take on a "package deal" and raise some other guy's kids.

To be frank, in this day and age, kids are an expensive luxury. And there are so many legal, criminal and financial traps involved. Why should good looking guys with something going for themselves settle for that baggage when there are so many girls without it?

It's too late for this gal, but she should have considered the consequences when she was 16, 20, 24 (she didn't say how old here kids were) and went ahead with the pregnancies.

She COULD have had abortions, you know. Maybe she's religious and doesn't believe in abortion? Well, if she is so religious, she shouldn't be having sex anyway. Right? If so, she is a hypocrite, and follows her religion only when it suits her, and ignores it otherwise. Religion is for the stupid and ignorant. And yes, most people are both stupid, ignorant and religious. So what else is new?

And, she COULD have waited until at least 25 or later to start spawning. Waiting until her and her potential impregnators have a bit of maturity can also reduce the single mother epidemic of which she is a part.

All of you bimbos who just can't wait to drop litters, wake up. You are f'ing idiots - literally.