<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pretty much the definition of &#8217;self-limiting&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/11/24/pretty-much-the-definition-of-self-limiting/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/11/24/pretty-much-the-definition-of-self-limiting/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:02:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: gs</title>
		<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/11/24/pretty-much-the-definition-of-self-limiting/#comment-302164</link>
		<dc:creator>gs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2007/11/24/pretty-much-the-definition-of-self-limiting/#comment-302164</guid>
		<description>Happily there's a countertrend, and not just among people who accept a religious obligation to be fruitful and multiply.  However, sages in the media are &lt;a href="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/rich_litter.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;sneering&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;blockquote&gt;In richest Manhattan, an alarming trend has risen from the primordial ooze that is hedge-fund money. This trend is flooding the chic nursery schools,clogging the fashionable secondary schools and sending many a billionaire from a sports car into a giant gas-guzzling Denali. Yes, the hot accessory of 2007 is children—but not just one or two. It seems that fashionable women in Manhattan just can’t stop popping them out...

But I believe (subscribing to the maxim that the rich are just like us, but with more money) that there is more to this boomlet than just showing off. Perhaps they are trying to keep their numbers up so their kids don’t have to venture to Second Avenue for a play date. Perhaps the loneliness and isolation of wealth in the face of global suffering is causing the baby blitz.&lt;/blockquote&gt;See &lt;a href="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/rich_litter.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;also&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;blockquote&gt;It seems the rich are pumping out children (almost) like it’s 1899. Yes, the latest conspicuous consumption is conspicuous reproduction - uber-rich women giving birth to the beginnings of a softball team: three, four, five, even six, children.

Hey, what’s the biggie if they can afford it? Well, the question is, can the rest of us?

There’s something in this that stinks of what I call “show brats”: children as the latest fashion accessory. Less well-to-do people have them, too — they just have fewer of them, and are less apt, simply by virtue of income, to pass their children’s rearing off on “the staff.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;Is such writing the sign of a social conscience, or are very different attitudes embodied in the wannabe-hip NYC commentary?

I can't think of a better prognosis of a civilization's vitality than people choosing to reproduce.  Coming among many troubling cultural indicators, this news is extremely welcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Happily there&#8217;s a countertrend, and not just among people who accept a religious obligation to be fruitful and multiply.  However, sages in the media are <a href="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/rich_litter.php" rel="nofollow">sneering</a>:<br />
<blockquote>In richest Manhattan, an alarming trend has risen from the primordial ooze that is hedge-fund money. This trend is flooding the chic nursery schools,clogging the fashionable secondary schools and sending many a billionaire from a sports car into a giant gas-guzzling Denali. Yes, the hot accessory of 2007 is children—but not just one or two. It seems that fashionable women in Manhattan just can’t stop popping them out&#8230;</p>
<p>But I believe (subscribing to the maxim that the rich are just like us, but with more money) that there is more to this boomlet than just showing off. Perhaps they are trying to keep their numbers up so their kids don’t have to venture to Second Avenue for a play date. Perhaps the loneliness and isolation of wealth in the face of global suffering is causing the baby blitz.</p></blockquote>
<p>See <a href="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/11/rich_litter.php" rel="nofollow">also</a>:<br />
<blockquote>It seems the rich are pumping out children (almost) like it’s 1899. Yes, the latest conspicuous consumption is conspicuous reproduction - uber-rich women giving birth to the beginnings of a softball team: three, four, five, even six, children.</p>
<p>Hey, what’s the biggie if they can afford it? Well, the question is, can the rest of us?</p>
<p>There’s something in this that stinks of what I call “show brats”: children as the latest fashion accessory. Less well-to-do people have them, too — they just have fewer of them, and are less apt, simply by virtue of income, to pass their children’s rearing off on “the staff.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Is such writing the sign of a social conscience, or are very different attitudes embodied in the wannabe-hip NYC commentary?</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t think of a better prognosis of a civilization&#8217;s vitality than people choosing to reproduce.  Coming among many troubling cultural indicators, this news is extremely welcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
