AGAIN, 'life' TO 'you', "gary childress" can ONLY EVER be SWEET and ROSIE, OR, APOCALYPTIC and DESTRUCTION, right?
There is NEVER NO 'in between', correct?
Things don't need to be "rosy". I'd just prefer them not to be apocalyptic.
Sounds like you are having a big problem with the ways things are currently, which is okay I guess, but betrays a lack of of historical perspective. When looked at over a longer time period, things now are seen to be (relatively) the best they've ever been.
Not if human overpopulation is destroying the planet. If that's the case then things are only getting worse. And there doesn't seem to be much we can realistically do about it.
Things don't need to be "rosy". I'd just prefer them not to be apocalyptic.
Sounds like you are having a big problem with the ways things are currently, which is okay I guess, but betrays a lack of of historical perspective. When looked at over a longer time period, things now are seen to be (relatively) the best they've ever been.
Not if human overpopulation is destroying the planet. If that's the case then things are only getting worse. And there doesn't seem to be much we can realistically do about it.
Well, based on current estimates the worldwide human fertility rate will drop below replacement levels in about 2050.
