VEGANGELICA

Children represent all sorts of things to parents, sleepy, so this statement is false, I feel. Children in developing countries can both be seen as a profit *and* a life to the parents.

This isn't just true about kids in the developing world: most kids in the developed world are viewed by parents as future sources of security in addition to being appreciated as lives. I feel many people have children for the sake of the parents. Parents are not having children for the sake of the *children* since the children don't yet exist! At best, parents have children to express and amplify the experience of love they have as a couple, which is in a way a greedy thing to do even if it is well intentioned.

I feel the song is being too hard on people who have lots of children (those in the developing world); the song *ought* to be attacking those of us in the developed world who have even *one* child (such as myself), since that one child consumes the same amount of resources as approximately 10 children in Africa. What truly IS greedy is the desire of some developed countries' governments to increase the fertility rate so that there will be more children to pay social security for the large number of retiring old people. So, if that is the meaning of the song, then I agree. However, these babies in the developed world are not the ones who are part of the "overpopulation" problem alluded to in the song (in the first two lines), although they are part of the worldwide *consumption* problem.

My problem with the song is that it sounds like it is ranting without a clear target for the rant. Are they attacking overpopulation (primarily occurring the the developing world) or over-consumption (primarily occurring in the developed world)? Little poor children in Africa or India aren't consuming much, and their parents probably suffer from lack of education, illiteracy, etc....hardly fair targets of such heavy criticism. They are in need of help not blame.

__________________