 |
|
|
||
Visit our sponsorsFill up our coffee fundBlogAdsBuy it!Most EmailedVisit our sponsors |
Get our Digestifs du jourNibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.
culturekitchensThe Publisher Daily servings of political dissent Grassroots News and Feminist Bloggers A new kind of vouyerism Art + Code + Philosophy Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP. Hot Topics
Member's articles and stories
Recent reviews
| |
Google AdsThe Big Dialog
| ||
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 1080 guests online.
Online users | ||
We likeInstant CongressUpcoming eventsWords to live by“I just think this is the worst type of governmental meddling. It makes the assumption that students who are attending colleges and universities need to be coddled… that they’re not able to determine right from wrong.†Subscribe Buttons                    | ||
Can't help asking
and not to be argumentative, honest!
. . . is one society level answer not to have those kids to "do for" in the first place? If humans need to cut back on each person's impact, surely cutting back on people period is one part of doing this? But at the society level then, wouldn't that degrade the world's most scientific, technologically and economically advanced, mobile and educated populations, relative to those with the smallest carbon footprint AND the smallest likelihood of creating-affording-electing-empowering the major system changes we need to address the global impact of humanity? Does it diminish another "natural" resource -- us -- I guess I'm asking?