I'd agree with the previous commenter. If this one has you so stymied, you're not going to get far as a parent, and in all likelihood you'll produce offspring that hate you.

Why? Because your purported concern is really another way of saying, "What will my child think of me?" And that's just a self-esteem issue of the LW's.

You can't be a parent because you want your kid to like you. If every decision you make as a parent is colored by this notion that of your offspring's feelings about their continued existence, you're just being ridiculous and melodramatic. Most people--the vast majority of reasonably well-adjusted ones, anyway--do not walk through their lives thinking of how much they hate their parents for bringing them into the world.

If they're optimistic at heart, they'll be thankful. But let's face it, we as humans are very aware that the parent's roles as protector, teacher, and reource-provider far far outweigh their role as creator. Why? We know any two people can hump each other and produce offspring.

You're mixing up your roles, LW. You're giving primacy to this whole "giver-of-life" bit, which of course affords you a sort of godhood. Then you're ignoring (at least from what I read in the letter) all the other things that make a good parent, and how many ways a good parent can influence a child to become a happy, intelligent, productive, and healthy adult. Those don't merit your attention or discussion.

You also sound like you belong to this weird new cult of Child Love I see all over America. It's this nutty fetishized form of hand-wringing concern for children, as if kids are only fragile little delicate butterfly-like creatures, and not also hardy, resilient, really-freakin' tough little boogers. They're not a separate species. They're just younger, less-experienced, immature people.

Which is why I'd tell you that you should not have children. You're right in a certain sense: you'd be doing your kid a disservice to bring them into the world, but not because they're coming into this terrible shitty world, which is no place for a kid. No, it's more to do with who's welcoming them into it...namely, you.

You'd do the same disservice to an adopted kid, too. You're more worried about you than them, no matter how you spin it.

You go to Obama events.

Here's where your effort can make a difference. Why just go to Obama events? There's something that's drawing you in, right? A growing political awareness, maybe? A sense that things could be better, somehow?

Well, there you go. I'm not saying give $3M to Obama's campaign. But a few thousand would make the campaign sit up and pay attention to you. Even better plan: give some cash to a local politician you support, who has some policies you'd like to change. Money, you see, can serve many purposes, but one of the most powerful ones is getting people in positions of power to pay attention to you for a short while.

I'd agree with the other commenters who point out that $3M isn't that much money. But it's enough that you could make some major changes in your lives and those around you, should you see fit.

I only wish I had $3M. I have this great idea for a company!

The real problem here is that the best way to win hearts and minds is via economic aid.

And yes, that's what we're doing, but we're doing it through the military. The U.S. Army is not exactly flush with economists, especially in the field. So handing out cash willy-nilly buys you some goodwill, yes. But it also makes you look like a stupid patsy.

Why the Bush administration is so adamant that we exclusively use the Army and Marines to rebuild Iraq? There are many other ways (and many other organizations) that are far better suited to the task. It's like using a hammer to drive in screws. Sure, it can be done, but why?

Specific fuel consumption.

Internal combustion engines today are about two and one half times more efficient than they were in the 1970s.

The specific fuel consumption for my 4000 lbs. Sequoia is:

.023 gal/hp/hour

The equivalent engine in 1978 for a 4000 lbs car is:

.060 gal/hp/hour

My 1963 470 ci. aircraft engine is:

.081 gal/hp/hour (ouch!)

Also...

1)Today's engine produce ultra low emissions.

2)Today's cars are much much safer.

We consume more fuel because we drive more miles per person and there are many more cars on the road, jets in the air and delivery trucks bringing your organic food from the farm.

This is not a Prius vs. Hummer debate. A parked Hummer consumes less fuel that a moving Prius.

Don't blame the car – it's us.

-----

Er, that's all well and good. You make some good points, but that doesn't take into account the fact that while fuel consumption per hour per HP has decreased, fuel efficiency overall is still largely unchanged. So okay, engines are more efficient, but if you make the car heavier, or add more pistons to it, it's pretty much a wash.

When you take into account the number of cars on the road now, too, the picture becomes clearer. And SUVs and trucks are simply not nearly as efficient as sedans or coupes, thanks to increased drag coefficients from increased frontal area, higher curb weights, big engines tuned for torque, etc.

No, TT has it right. When gas is cheap, people don't care about efficiency. When gas is expensive, people care.

So in a certain sense, high gas prices are great. They're not great for low-income people who need every dollar. But they definitely produce incentive to find (and fund, and manufacture) alternatives to the gas-guzzler.