It is good to see Salon finally hitting this issue head-on, and I am encouraged by the question and the letters here, even if Pablo did make the mistake of saying that stopping at two is in any way "neutral" or just a "continuation of your genetic legacy," whatever that means. But in general what he and the others here have pointed out is true. Having an additional child, regardless of the current number of children you have (even if it is zero) is the greatest negative impact the most people are capable of having on the environment.

The way to deal with the fecundity of whatever group you see as "less enlightened" is not a futile attempt to outbreed them, throwing gasoline on the fire, but rather to use that energy that you would be putting into an additional child into having your own life be exemplary, or even helping to "enlightened" these so-called unenlightened. Rather than having children and hoping they will make the world a better place, why not just make the world a better place? Or adopt and have it both ways.

because it's pretty obvious that this entire enterprise is extremely messed up.

Here in New York, surrogacy-for-hire is against public policy and is illegal. Contracts are void and repeat offenders can be jailed. I think that's a good thing.

Surrogacy is much worse than prostitution. Instead of buying a body for 30 minutes at a time, you are buying it for nine months, which will have a much greater impact on health, and whose emotional impact (bringing a pregnancy to term and then giving up the baby for cash) is certainly much greater than emotion-free sex.

The world is incredibly overpopulated. To go exploit impoverished women in one of the most impoverished and overpopulated countries in the world and renting a womb to bring another overprivileged, first-world baby into being is just indefensible. How about adopting an Indian baby instead? That goes for people who are not infertile, too (see the current Ask Pablo column).

I feel the same way about the human egg market. And let's stop calling it "donation," it's not "donation" when you're doing it for thousands of dollars.

Our enlightened Mr. Gher managed two exploit not one but TWO Indian women, because he wanted only the best eggs that money could buy and to increase the emotional distance from his second rented body. So he had one Indian woman all hormoned up and her ovary sliced open to have the eggs taken out, mixed with his sperm, and stuck up in a second Indian woman.

Great work, Mr. Gher. I guess you are really contributing to the "new economy."

And what does Mr. Gher do for a living? The article tells us that he is "a communications officer for the environmental group Greenpeace."

This is the face of Greenpeace, #1 international environmental activist group?

The world has gone mad.

I was so happy when Spitzer was elected.

It was extremely stupid of him to patronize prostitutes as a lawyer and especially as the highest prosecutor in the state.

But I don't see this as particularly relevant to his current duties as governor. Maybe he should be disciplined by the state bar association, but this kind of personal sexual failing and misdemeanor (unless there was more to it, like some kind of bribery) should not affect his job.

Unfortunately the situation in Albany is so ugly I doubt he will stay.

I was asked on arrival to have an off-the-record conversation with a U.S. Army public affairs officer. He explained a few rules about avoiding sections of the base that were run by the CIA and Special Forces. Then he told me that although we could literally see Pakistan from where we stood, I should ask no questions about what role Pakistan played in Afghanistan's war. "You might as well pretend it doesn't exist," he said. He understood reporters were interested, and acknowledged that most of the insurgents operating in Kunar were based across the border in Pakistan. But the Army's orders were, essentially, to ignore the problem. "Pakistan," he said, smiling, "is a committed ally in the war on terror."

You had an "off-the-record" conversation and then related it in your article with direct quotes? It's nice to know that this is what the Army is doing, but I take it you don't care about future access to military sources.

That was a very insightful post, but having a child is not easy either.

Yes, there is a chance you will get the perfect bouncing baby. But if you are being responsible having a child, then you have to accept the risk that your kid will not turn out as how you hope, that s/he will have profound disabilities, that it may do everything you loathe and you still have to love him/her, and all the other things that can go wrong. At least with adoption you have some living history to go on, whereas despite your pristine genome what you actually get with a child is purely luck of the draw.

And as for expense; having a baby is extremely expensive too. By adopting you have to subtract out the expense of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising up to that age. The cost risk of having a kid is so high in this day and age that this is just not a responsible objection; if you can't afford an adoption, then you shouldn't be having a baby.

And let's not forget the public adoption option. Yes you might have to adopt a somewhat older, non-blue-eyed-blond kid, but in most states you will actually be paid to adopt.