Real, Strange News

Roo meat is the cleanest, and tastiest on earth. Try it once and you'll be hooked. Their farts are all right too.

I agree. A couple of skewers of roo on the barbeque and some Cooper's pale and all is right with the world.

When did the future of "mother earth" become more important than human life? Was it at the same time Nietszche decided some men are above morality? Or was it when postmodernism did away with all morality? I mean honestly, this whole contraception/child tax thing is stupid... why don't we just take it to its logical extent and force abortions for most people?

We like to think that we have some sort of superior knowledge than other cultures. Who is to say Kangaroo farts aren't the answer? I know that it sounds a little crazy I just think that we need to be more open to other cultures especially those that know more about the subject that we do.

Anybody advocating that we save trees by having abortions should be tried as a traitor to the human species. I know we need trees to breath, but come on! Human procreation is a fundamental right and we should never infringe upon it.

I didn't see anybody seriously advocating abortion to "save trees". I think Jason was being just a bit ironic.

As far as I understand it, a tax doesn't infringe upon a person's right to do something (although it may make it a little harder to exercise that right). For example, you have the right to property, but I can't think of a locality that doesn't require you to pay taxes on that property.

Taxing birth seems like one step away from what they do in China. Granted it's a big step, but once you make a move and the momentum goes in that direction it becomes harder to turn back.

I don't think you need to worry about that happening. I'll point you to the example of the many countries with high alcohol taxes. It hasn't stopped anyone drinking and I've yet to see anyone pass a limit on how much booze they can buy.

I'd also suggest that there is no way a child-limit bill would ever pass. Political suicide.

To Kushiro,
in my opinion it is the poor who most need to have children, especially in developing countries. They more you have the more hands you have to help. You also have more mouths to feed but those mouths grow up and then can give back. Children also bring a social capital to peoples lives that can't be quantified with a carbon tax. This plan is inhuman.
The Kangaroo farts plan seems inhumane, though they are animals who will be slaughtered anyway so I can stomach it better, no pun intended.

I think taxing births is a logical and constructive idea. The unchecked proliferation of our species is destroying our habitat, folks. There will come a time when it won't support our existence anymore and it's not in some distant neverland. I'm not worried about the planet - the Earth will survive and renew itself over (much)time but it will have to rid itself of most of the humans first and it's not going to be pretty. Those who think that the world needs them to leave behind a whole load of their DNA when they die should compensate the biosphere in some way.

Tally P.:

I agree with you on your insight on the strength that children bring to communities in developing countries, especially when those communities maintain an understanding of their connection to their land and environment.

I don't think anyone feels that the poor in developing countries should pay such a tax. It would be impossible to enforce anyway.

What an unmitigated bloody idiot Professor Barry Walters is. He proposes to levy a tax on any family that has more than a certain number of children. (He suggests: Two Kids)
The tax would be used to plant trees and otherwise "offset" the additional carbon generated by the extra children. There are so many things wrong with this idea, one hardly knows where to begin. First of all, it sounds a lot like the law they have in China. Since when did Australia become a commie country?

But more to the point...

Look at a list of the countries with the highest birth rates. The world champ for birthrate is Niger, with 50.16 births per 1,000 people. The rest of the top ten are:
Mali, Uganda, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Burkina Faso, Somalia, Angola, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The next ten are:
Yemen, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Burundi, Guinea, Zambia, Mauritania, Nigeria and Rwanda. (It doesn't get any better.)

Conversely, look at the "Western Democracies." Australia ranks 169th in birth rate per 1,000 people, with 12.02 births per. The US? 151st. France? 161st. Russia? 176th. Great Britain? 182nd. Spain? 193rd. Germany? 218th. Japan? 219th.

The fact is, so-called "western democracies" don't have many kids. In fact, Italy is bordering on having a negative birth rate. Look at the top 50 names on the list. With very few exceptions, they are all poor, third-world nations, the majority of which are on the African continent.

What do you think the chances are of Dr. Walters' hare-brained idea going over big in a place like Somalia? A place where you need lots of sons to help you work your land. A place where the AIDS death rate is out of control. A place where civil wars predominate. Put yourself in the position of the poor Somalian farmer. Along comes this white guy who is telling you to stop having kids. You would quite rightly think he was completely out of his mind.

On paper, Dr. Walters' idea might work. But the simple truth is none of the countries with high birth rates would ever agree to it. (It's hard to worry about global warming when your country is at war, and you are starving.)

Getting western democracies to do it might make some people feel better about themselves, but it wouldn't even make a dent in the problem, 'cause they aren't the ones that are having kids. Unless you get the countries who actually have high birth rates to agree to it, the whole question is moot, isn't it?

Dr. Walters should go back to doing something he actually knows about, like delivering babies.

This is against human life. Who could promote such an abomination! Go to hell you jerks